JUDGMENT 1. The appellants herein who were arraigned as accused Nos.1 and 3 before the learned Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court, Bailhongal in S.C. No. 39/2008, have preferred this appeal calling in question the judgment of conviction and sentence passed in the said case vide judgment dated 09.11.2010. Accused No.2 died during the trial. The trial court has sentenced accused No.1 to undergo simple imprisonment for six months for the offence punishable u/S 504 of IPC. Accused Nos.1 and 3 were sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for six years and pay a fine of Rs.50,000/- each, in default to pay fine, both accused shall undergo simple imprisonment for two years for the offence punishable u/S 333 r/w Sec. 34 of IPC and they were also sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for 8 years and to pay a fine of Rs.50,000/- each and in default to pay fine they shall undergo simple imprisonment for two years for the offence punishable u/s 307 r/w Sec. 34 of IPC. Out of the fine amount 50% of the amount was ordered to be paid to P.W.28 as compensation. 2. The above said judgment of conviction and sentence has been strenuously attacked before this Court by the learned counsel for the appellant by elaborating the grounds urged in the memorandum of appeal, which, I am going to discuss little later. 3. Before adverting to the grounds urged by the appellant, it is just and necessary to have brief factual matrix of the case. 4. As could be seen from the materials available on record one Mr.Ashok Appanna Arishinagodi-P.W.1 has lodged a complaint as per Ex.P.1 stating that himself and P.w.28 by name K.S.Kuri were working as Police Constables at Nesargi Police station during the year 2008. On 03.11.2017 both of them were deputed to apprehend one Basappa Yallappa Mirji of Vannur village. In that context, they had been to Vannur village at about 3.00 p.m. and informed Basappa Yallappa Mirji to go over to Police Station and thereafter they were standing near Vannur bus stand. At that time they received an information that, in Vannur village on Gajamanal road the accused persons were selling illicit liquor to some people on the road side near Idga Maidan. After receiving the said information they informed the same to PSI, Nesargi, in turn PSI told them to go over to the said place. At that time they received an information that, in Vannur village on Gajamanal road the accused persons were selling illicit liquor to some people on the road side near Idga Maidan. After receiving the said information they informed the same to PSI, Nesargi, in turn PSI told them to go over to the said place. Immediately PW1 and PW28 had been to Gajamanal road in Vannur village and observed that the accused persons were selling illicit liquor. After seeing PW1 and PW28 the accused persons have shouted, particularly accused No.1 abused PW1 and PW28 in filthy language as bastards and Police were not allowing the accused persons to commit thefts and selling arrack and they are obstructing the business of the accused persons. By saying so, accused No.1 took over a jambe (knife) and assaulted on the left hand and also instigated accused No.2 to kill PW28 with knife. In that context, accused No.2 assaulted PW28 with a sickle on various parts of the body. At that time, accused No.3 who was holding a koita (chopper) assaulted PW28 on his back, head and other parts of the body. PW1 and PW28 screamed for help. Immediately some people by name Honna Naika, Somanagowda Patil, Dundappa Inchala, Ramanna Jogi, Bahubali Chinnamma Jain, Mahantesh Gudashi, Balu Naik, Ajjappa Navalagi and others came to that spot. After seeing those persons the accused persons threatening PW1 and PW28 with dire consequences of killing them next time, ran away from the spot. Thereafter, PW28 was shifted to hospital and Pw21 lodged a complaint as per ex.P.1. 5. On the basis of the above said complaint, the respondent Police have registered a case in crime No.106/2007 for the offences punishable u/S 333, 353, 307, 504, 109 r/w Sec. 34 of IPC. After thorough investigation the respondent Police have laid a charge sheet against all the accused for the above said offences. 6. In fact, after committal proceedings after securing the presence of the accused the trial Court has framed charges against them for the above said offences. The prosecution in order to bring home the guilt of the accused, examined as many as 29 witnesses (PWs.1 to 29) got marked documents as per Exs.P.1 to P.37 and material objects MOs 1 to 9. The prosecution in order to bring home the guilt of the accused, examined as many as 29 witnesses (PWs.1 to 29) got marked documents as per Exs.P.1 to P.37 and material objects MOs 1 to 9. The appellants were also examined by the court u/S 313 of Cr.P.C. and thereafter the accused No.1 also entered the witness box and examined himself as dW1 and got marked Exs.D1 to D.12. After appreciating the oral and documentary evidence on record, the trial Court has arrived at a conclusion that the prosecution has proved the case beyond reasonable doubt and accordingly convicted and sentenced the accused persons as noted supra. 7. Before adverting to the grounds urged before this Court by the learned counsel it is just and necessary to have brief cursory look at the evidence adduced by the prosecution. 8. PW1, as I have already noted, is the complainant and eyewitness to the incident. PW2-Subhashgouda Honnanaik Patil, is a panch witness to ex.P.2 under which a blood stained banian, one blood stained shirt of PW28 was seized. The said witness has not been cross-examined. PW3 is an eyewitness but he has not supported the case of the prosecution. He has only stated that he has seen the place of incident and seen the Police Sub Inspector shifted the injured person to the hospital and he has produced a chopper before Police which was stained with blood. PW4 is a panch witness to Ex.P.4 under which the Police have seized MOs 1, 2 and 3, i.e., blood stained mud, unstained mud and pieces of horsegram plants from the place of incident. but these witnesses have also not supported the case of the prosecution. PW5 similarly is also a witness to Ex.P.4. But, he has also not supported the case of the prosecution. PW6 is a panch witness to ex.P.6. He has admitted his signature on Ex.P.6 but he turned hostile to the prosecution. This witness was examined for to establish that under the said document MOs 4 and 5, i.e., ash and sickle were seized from near Idga Maidan which was produced by the accused Nos.1 and 2. PW7, similarly a witness to Ex.P.6. He has also turned hostile to the prosecution. 9. This witness was examined for to establish that under the said document MOs 4 and 5, i.e., ash and sickle were seized from near Idga Maidan which was produced by the accused Nos.1 and 2. PW7, similarly a witness to Ex.P.6. He has also turned hostile to the prosecution. 9. PW8 is the material witness the Doctor who treated PW28 and gave wound certificate as per Ex.P.7 and also gave his opinion with regard to the weapons, as per Ex.P.8, P.9 and P.10. The evidence of this witness requires a detailed discussion little later. 10. PW9-Huchappa Chinawal is the Asst. Executive Engineer who has visited the spot and drawn sketch of scene of offence as per Ex.P.11. There is no much cross-examination except stating that he has prepared the sketch as per the requisition of the Police Department. PW10 who was working as Village Accountant of Vannur, has furnished the R.T.C. extract pertaining to Sy. No. 14/1B of Vannur village belonging to Hallur family as per Ex.P.12 with reference to the nature of crop grown in the said survey number. It is admitted by him that he has not visited the place for verification but according to the entries in the RTC he has given the said document. PW11 is the Police Sub Inspector working at Nesargi Police station from 06.07.2007 to 20.03.2008 who received telephonic call on 03.11.2007 from PC No. 2477 (PW28) at about 4.50 p.m. about the accused persons dealing with illicit liquor in the land of one Mallappa siddalingappa Hallur in Vannur village and PWs1 and 28 were proceeding to that particular spot. He has also later registered a case on the basis of Ex.P.1 in Crime No. 106/2007 and discharged FIR to the jurisdictional Magistrate as per ex.P.13 and shifted the injured to KLE Hospital and got him admitted to hospital for treatment after reaching the spot and witnessing the injured. 11. PWs 12 to 17and 27 are the eyewitnesses to the incident. But, none of them have supported the case of the prosecution; P.W.18 is the person examined before the Court to establish that, the accused persons have committed the theft of electric motor in the land of this person and he lodged a complaint but he has not supported the case of the prosecution. Likewise, PW19 also examined for similar purpose. He has also not supported the case of the prosecution. Likewise, PW19 also examined for similar purpose. He has also not supported the case of the prosecution. PW20 similarly examined for to show that the accused persons have committed theft of pumpset in his land. He supported the case of the prosecution stating that on 11.09.2007 some pumpsets were stolen by some people. Later the same was recovered and he identified such motor pump and he gave a complaint to Police as per Ex.P.15 and the said pump set was recovered from the accused persons. PW21 is the Police sub Inspector who deposed that he has deputed PWs1 and 28 to apprehend one basappa Yallappa Mirji in connection with LPT No. 76/2007 and he received information from PW28 over telephone with regard to the accused persons dealing with illicit liquor at Vannur and PWs1 and 28 were proceeding on that particular place and thereafter PSI going to that particular spot. He has also deposed that on the same day at 6.15 p.m. PSI returned along with PW1 and stated that PW28 was profusely bleeding and he was admitted to hospital. This witness was not cross examined by the defence. 12. PW22-Pandurang is the ASI, who in fact apprehended accused No.3 on 05.11.2007 and produced him before the CPI, Nesargi with his reports at Exs.P.25 and 26. PW23-Fakirappa is a Police constable, attached to Nesargi Police Station who carried 9 articles to FSL as per the direction of the I.O. PW-24 is a panch witness to Ex.P.27 who turned hostile to the prosecution. According to the prosecution under Ex.P.27 the Police have seized MO6, a Koita from a bush at the instance of accused No.3. PW-25 is another panch witness to Ex.P.27, he has also turned hostile to the prosecution. PW26 was working as P.S.I. at Bailhongal from 22.08.2007 to 31.05.2008, he has deputed PWs1 and 28 to apprehend accused Nos.1 and 2 in this case. He apprehended the accused Nos.1 and 2 and produced them before CPI with a report Ex.P.28. This witness was also not cross-examined. PW28 is the injured person who has categorically stated about the overt acts of the accused and sustaining of the injury at the hands of the accused. I will in detail discuss the evidence of this witness little later. 13. This witness was also not cross-examined. PW28 is the injured person who has categorically stated about the overt acts of the accused and sustaining of the injury at the hands of the accused. I will in detail discuss the evidence of this witness little later. 13. Learned counsel for the appellant strenuously contended that, except the evidence of PWs1 and 28 and the Doctor, the prosecution has not established any other circumstances against the accused persons. It is contended by the learned counsel that material witnesses PWs 12 to 20 have not supported the case of the prosecution. When the accused persons having previous bad antecedents and the Police were making arrangement to apprehend them. Therefore, there is chance of the Police falsely implicating the accused persons. 14. Mainly the learned counsel strenuously contended that on the particular day of the incident, PWs1 and 28 had been to the house of accused Nos.1 to 3 at Gajamanal village and in fact started abusing accused persons and in that context PW28 with the help of a cutter assaulted accused No.2 and in turn accused No.2 with the same cutter assaulted PW28 and these factors are proved before the Court by means of preponderance of probabilities, by way of cross examination of PW28 and the evidence of accused No.1 examined as DW1. Therefore, the genesis of the case of the prosecution itself is not believable. The allegation of the prosecution is that the accused persons have used a chopper, knife and koita. Admittedly, they are all sharp edged weapons but most of the injuries found on the body of PW28 are lacerated wounds but those lacerated wounds can be caused only by blunt objects like club, iron rod or falling on hard surface. No incised wounds are available on the body of the victim. Therefore, the story of the prosecution cannot be accepted. The RTC extracts produced at Exs.P.4 and P5 also does not tally with the place of occurrence, particularly when PW12 to PW20 and 27 who are all eyewitnesses and other connecting witnesses have turned hostile, the evidence of PW28 cannot be solely accepted without any corroboration. The house of accused No.1 is situated at Gajamanal village and admittedly PW28 gone there to the house of accused No.1 at 4 p.m. and he was in the house of accused No.1 which is at a distance of 15 kms. The house of accused No.1 is situated at Gajamanal village and admittedly PW28 gone there to the house of accused No.1 at 4 p.m. and he was in the house of accused No.1 which is at a distance of 15 kms. Therefore, there cannot be any incident being taken place at Vannur village at 4.50 p.m. as alleged by the prosecution. Therefore, the prosecution has not proved the case beyond reasonable doubt. The recovery of incriminating articles from the accused are also not proved as the witnesses PWs24 and 25 have not supported the case of the prosecution. 15. PW9-I.O. in fact has received the information of the incident at 3.00 p.m. When it is established that PW28 had gone to Gajamanal at 4 p.m. and there is no reason to believe that the incident could happen at Vannur at 4.50 p.m. 16. It is further contended by the learned counsel that there is no seizure of any articles with reference to sale of any liquor, liquor tube, being there on the spot. Therefore, the story of the prosecution cannot be believed. The trial Court has not appreciated all these materials on record. Therefore, he contends that, for the above said reasons the accused persons are entitled to be acquitted on the ground of benefit of doubt. He alternatively also contended that the accused persons were also in jail for more than six months, i.e., accused Nos.1 and 3 and the offence u/S 307 of IPC is not attracted. At the most, it may attract the offence u/S 324 or 326. Therefore, if the custodial period is considered as sentence against them it would meet the ends of justice. Hence, he pleaded that, even if the court comes to the conclusion that the accused have to be convicted, they may be released considering their custodial period as sentence upon them. Therefore, the learned counsel pleaded for allowing of the appeal or for modification of the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court. 17. Per contra learned SPP strenuously contended that, though the eyewitnesses have turned hostile, there is clear-cut material to show that PWs1 or 28 have never gone to the house of the accused. On the other hand, the accused persons have admitted in the course of cross-examination of PW28 about the happening of some incident and PW28 sustaining injury. 17. Per contra learned SPP strenuously contended that, though the eyewitnesses have turned hostile, there is clear-cut material to show that PWs1 or 28 have never gone to the house of the accused. On the other hand, the accused persons have admitted in the course of cross-examination of PW28 about the happening of some incident and PW28 sustaining injury. Therefore, there is no need for examination of any witnesses as the evidence of PW28 is corroborated by the evidence of DW1 and the cross-examination of PWs1 and 28. 18. Ex.P.1 only shows that PWs1 and 28 were entrusted to go to Vannur village and not to Gajamanal village. It is the case of the defence that accused No.2 also sustained some injuries in the incident but there is absolutely no such allegation when he was produced before the JMFC after his arrest and no complaint has been lodged against the Police and no material to show that he has taken any treatment in any hospital and he has also not made any effort to establish that particular defence during the course of cross-examination of PWs1 and 28. Therefore, when the evidence of PWs1 and 28 are not so controverted with regard to the happening of the incident and sustaining of the injury by PW28 and when the accused persons failed to prove their defence, there is no reason to disbelieve the evidence of PWs1 and 28. Therefore, he contends that the trial Court has rightly convicted the accused persons for the above said offences. He further contends that the evidence of the Doctor shows that, there are so many lacerated wounds but the weapons used by the accused were not blunt. Therefore, while assaulting if sharp edged and blunt portion are also used for commission of the assault, then such injuries are also could be possible. Under the above said circumstances though some of the witnesses have turned hostile, the above said evidence is sufficient to draw the inference that, the accused persons have committed such offences. 19. The learned counsel for the appellant for the purpose of some principles of law with reference to appreciation of evidence relied upon some rulings. Before adverting to the evidence it is just and necessary at least to bare in mind those decisions. 20. 19. The learned counsel for the appellant for the purpose of some principles of law with reference to appreciation of evidence relied upon some rulings. Before adverting to the evidence it is just and necessary at least to bare in mind those decisions. 20. In a decision reported in (2007) 13 SCC 83 between Sumersinbh Umedsing Rajput Alias Sumersinh v. State of Gujarat , the apex Court has observed that: 'appreciation of evidence contradictions, inconsistencies, exaggerations or embellishments if exist and lot of discrepancies is there in the prosecution case with regard to the manner in which incident had happened, in such an eventuality the case u/S 307 of IPC cannot be said to have been made out. The intention or knowledge relating to commission of murder should be there and the victim should survive, then only the offence u/s 307 of IPC is attracted.' In another ruling reported in (1981) 2 SCC 60 between Ram Ashrit Ram and others v. State of Bihar , the apex Court has observed that: 'Testimony of highly interested, inimical and partisan witnesses, not corroborated to a material extent in all material particulars and suffering from improbabilities and material infirmities Held, unreliable and therefore, conviction based on such testimony must be set aside.' Last but not the least, learned counsel cited a ruling of this court rendered by this court in Criminal Appeal No. 2696/2009 (Ibrahimsab Husensab Mattur @ Mullanawar v. The State of Karnataka) wherein this court after analyzing the entire evidence on record, considering the nature of injuries and the weapons used, set aside the judgment for the offence u/S 307 of IPC and convicted the accused for the offences u/S 326 and 324 of IPC and ordered the custodial period as the sentence upon the accused. 21. The above said rulings, in fact, are not in a straight jacket manner applicable to any of the cases but they are only applicable depending upon the facts and circumstances of each case. However, the principles laid down in the above said case that if there are any contradictions and omissions in the evidence of the material witnesses, the Court has to take utmost care to appreciate them to ascertain whether those contradictions and omissions, if accepted would go to the root of the prosecution case and successfully demolish the case of the prosecution. Further the Court should bare in mind that whenever witnesses are interested or inimically disposed of or partisan witnesses, care should be taken by the Court, whether the evidence of such a witness is so trustworthy credible for acceptance in order to draw any inference of guilt of the accused. Bearing in mind the above said principles, now I would like to discuss the evidence on record. 22. It is also trite to say here that the conviction based on the testimony of a single witness cannot be blindly discarded. However, the credibility of such witness is to be tested to ascertain whether his evidence is shaken by any doubtful circumstances appearing on record against him. If the Court is convinced that the injured eyewitness, particularly, is a truthful witness, the court should not insist corroboration by any other eyewitness, particularly the incident might have occurred at a time or place when there was no possibility of any other eyewitness being present or if the records disclose that the witnesses came late to the spot. Therefore, it is quite clear that the Court always insisted quality of evidence and not the quantity of evidence. 23. In this case of course there are many number of eyewitnesses produced by the prosecution but PW8 is the solitary eyewitness being the injured in this case but the trial Court has carefully examined and accepted the evidence of PW28, the Court cannot simply brushed aside the evidence of PW8 merely on the ground that the prosecution case was sought to be proved by only one eyewitness, i.e., PWs1 and 28. Therefore, when the Court cannot legally insist corroboration from the evidence of other witnesses it is only a raider put is that the Court has to take utmost care to evaluate the evidence of such a witness to arrive at a conclusion that the evidence of injured eyewitness is trustworthy and credible for acceptance. If the court is of the opinion that, inspite of the remaining eyewitness turning hostile if the evidence of the injured eyewitnesses supported by other circumstances and materials on record, it becomes the duty of the Court to accept such evidence. 24. In the above backdrop, the evidence of PWs1 and 28, the Doctor and the evidence of DW1 requires to be very carefully evaluated in order to ascertain whether the prosecution was successful in proving case against the accused. 24. In the above backdrop, the evidence of PWs1 and 28, the Doctor and the evidence of DW1 requires to be very carefully evaluated in order to ascertain whether the prosecution was successful in proving case against the accused. So far as the other witnesses are concerned, as I have noted, most of the witnesses have turned hostile. Even recovery is also not established by the prosecution. 25. The evidence of PW1 who is an eyewitness to the incident and PW28 who is the injured, both of them have categorically stated in their evidence that they were deputed by Nesargi Police Station PSI on 03.11.2007 to apprehend a person by name Basappa Yallappa Mirji resident of Vannur in connection with LPT No. 76/2007 and accordingly both of them went to that particular place at 3.00 p.m. and they met that particular person and told him to appear before the PSI and thereafter both of them were near Vannur bus stand waiting for Bus. At that time, they received an information that near Gajamanal road in Vannur, the accused persons indulged in selling illicit liquor. Immediately, PW28 has telephoned to PSI, Nesargi and in turn the PSI has instructed PWs1 and 28 to go to that particular spot and watch the accused and take necessary steps so that the accused should not abscond from that particular place and he has also instructed that he would go to that particular spot along with his staff. 26. It is further stated by them that PWs1 and 28 had been to Idga maidan near Vannur bus stand. In the land of one Hallur the accused persons were indulging in selling arrack in a tube and glasses and thus PWs1 and 28 disguising themselves, were watching by standing near the road. At that time the accused No.1 having seen these two persons started abusing them with filthy language as bastards and the Police were not allowing the accused persons to commit any theft and to sell illegal liquor for their livelihood. By saying so, all the three persons started assaulting PW28. At that time the accused No.1 having seen these two persons started abusing them with filthy language as bastards and the Police were not allowing the accused persons to commit any theft and to sell illegal liquor for their livelihood. By saying so, all the three persons started assaulting PW28. Accused No.1 with a sickle assaulted on the head, right hand, left hand and left shoulder of PW28 and he started bleeding from those injuries and he started screaming for help and other accused persons also having knife and a chopper assaulted PW28 on the back left shoulder, left hand, left cheek, right hand, etc. and PW28 suffered severe bleeding injuries. At that time, the people who were passing through, after hearing the voice of PW28 came to that spot (who are said to be eyewitnesses) and after seeing them all the accused persons ran away from the spot along with the weapons in their hands. PW28 has identified the accused persons before the Court and also the weapons, i.e., MOs 5, 6 and 7 used by the accused persons. 27. PWs1 and 28 also deposed that after some time PSI, Nesargi came to that particular spot and shifted the injured to the hospital. PW1 gave complaint and on that basis a crime was registered. Very peculiarly apart from putting some questions to PWs1 and 28 with regard to the place of incident and no seizure of any classes or tubes in which the accused persons were selling the arrack it is specifically suggested that, on that particular day of the incident PWs1 and 28 had some suspicion that accused Nos.1 to 3 were indulging in committing theft of pumpsets in the lands of various farmers and charge sheet swere also filed against them. 28. It is also suggested that PWs1 and 28 were directed by the PSI to enquire into the said matter. 28. It is also suggested that PWs1 and 28 were directed by the PSI to enquire into the said matter. Of course the above said fact has been admitted by PW28 but further suggestion made to the effect that on 03.11.2002, i.e., on the date of the incident, the accused persons were there in the house of accused No.1 at Gajamanal village and PW28 had been to the house of accused No.1 at about 4 p.m. and at that time PW28 forced accused Nos.1 and 2 to confess with regard to the commission of theft of some pumpsets and accused Nos.1 and 2 have refused for the same and in that context there was a verbal altercation taken place between the accused and the PW28. It is also further suggested that for the said reason PW28 became angry and threw a TV set in the house of the accused into a well nearby their house and abused accused persons in filthy language and also started throwing household articles in the house of the accused. It is also suggested that the accused persons have questioned the act of PW28 and in that context PW28 has made an attempt to assault accused No.2 with a cutter. At that time, accused No.2 snatched the cutter from Pw28 and assaulted on PW28 on two or three times and accused No.1 also took a club and assaulted, therefore accused No.2 has only caused injuries to PW28 and at that time the accused Nos. 1 and 3 have resolved the dispute between PW28 and accused No.2. The above said suggestions have been emphatically denied by PW28. It is also suggested that in the above said incident accused No.2 also sustained some injuries but the Police have influenced the Doctors and Hospitals in surrounding areas so that accused No.2 was prevented from taking any treatment in any hospital and due to those injuries accused No.2 died during the pendency of the trial, these suggestions were also denied. 29. The above said evidence of PWs.28 and 21 clearly disclose that some incident had taken place between PW28 and the accused persons. 29. The above said evidence of PWs.28 and 21 clearly disclose that some incident had taken place between PW28 and the accused persons. Whether it was near Vannur village or in Gajamanal in the house of accused No.1, irrespective of that fact, the injuries sustained by PW28 and caused by accused No.2, even as per the evidence of accused No.1 examined as DW1 and the cross examination of PW28 is not disputed by the accused persons. On the other hand, they have narrated the incident in a different manner accepting the injuries on PW28 and as well as accused No.2. 30. Learned counsel has contended that, in the course of cross-examination, PW28 has admitted going to the house of accused No.1 on that particular day. On careful appreciation of the cross-examination of PW28, of course there is some mistake done by the Presiding Officer in putting full stop and commas while referring the evidence, between the sentences and words, because of that reason the discrepancy arose. But the overall evidence of PW1 and 28 if they are taken into consideration they never admitted that they had been to Gajamanal on that particular day at any point of time. 31. The document, i.e., complaint, at ex.P.1 clearly indicates that they had been to Vannur village on that particular day. The evidence of DW1 (accused No.1), he also categorically stated in the examination-in-chief that the Police have got some grievance against accused No.1 because he was the head of the village and he was actually resolving the criminal disputes in the village itself and cases were not reaching the Police station. Therefore, the accused No.1 contends that a false case has been foisted against them. In the examination-in-chief itself whatever has been suggested to PW28 as narrated above was also repeated by him that, on the date of the incident PW28 had visited the house of accused No.1 and there was quarrel between accused Nos.1 to 3 and PW28 and in that context accused No.2 has assaulted PW28 by snatching the cutter from the hands of PW28 and accused No.2 also sustained some injuries. 32. In the course of cross-examination of this witness, of course it is elicited that they are residing at Gajamanal village but it is suggested that the incident happened near Vannur. 32. In the course of cross-examination of this witness, of course it is elicited that they are residing at Gajamanal village but it is suggested that the incident happened near Vannur. Accused No.1 has produced some photographs marked at Exs.D1 to D.12 but it is not explained how he snapped those photographs when the incident had happened. Even accepting that in the house of accused No.1 but those photographs also do not establish the defence of the accused, that is the presence of PW28 in their house. Those photographs only show that some household articles were scattered in a particular tiled roof house. But, in the absence of any cogent and convincing materials this Court cannot draw any inference that household articles were thrown by PW28 on that particular day. 33. Of course, the Police have not seized any articles at the spot, like a tube or glasses in which the accused were selling liquor. It is the case of the accused No.1 that after the accused No.2 received some injury, the accused was taken to the hospital at Belagavi to the family Doctor but the said Doctor has not given any treatment to the accused. But the said Doctor has not been summoned before the Court. Secondly, as rightly contended by the learned SPP that the accused No.2 has not disclosed the above said fact anywhere till the cross-examination of PW28 much less to the jurisdictional Magistrate when he was arrested and produced before the Magistrate. The order sheet of the committal Court is silent so far as this aspect is concerned. 34. Therefore, looking to the above said evidence, even after reappreciation, in my opinion, when the incident is admitted and no sufficient materials are placed that the incident happened in the house of accused No.1and the other materials available on record show that the P.S.I. visited the spot found the injured at the spot and shifted him to the hospital and treatment was given to PW28. The history given to the Doctor who is a public servant discloses about the incident being happened at the place where the spot mahazar was drawn. In this background the evidence of PW8, in my opinion, also play a dominant role. 35. PW8 has deposed before the court that he was working as CMO in KLE Hospital at Belagavi. The history given to the Doctor who is a public servant discloses about the incident being happened at the place where the spot mahazar was drawn. In this background the evidence of PW8, in my opinion, also play a dominant role. 35. PW8 has deposed before the court that he was working as CMO in KLE Hospital at Belagavi. On 03.11.2007 PW28 was brought to the hospital with the history of assault. He has examined PW28 and found as many as 10 injuries as noted in his evidence. Of course the injury Nos. 4, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10 are said to be grievous in nature and other injuries were simple in nature. The Doctor has issued wound certificate as per Ex.P7. He has also examined three weapons, i.e., a koita, a knife and a chopper and gave his opinion as per Ex.P.8, P9 and P10 and deposed that the injuries found on PW28 could be caused assaulting with such weapons. Of course, on looking to the cross-examination of this witness, the witness has stated that even with the help of a sharp edged weapon like MOs 5 to 7, the injuries found on PW28 could be caused and it all depends upon the way in which the assault has been made. The Doctor has denied the suggestions to the effect that the above said injuries could only be caused with blunt weapons like iron bar, iron club or stone, etc. Of course the learned counsel is right in contending that the lacerations could be caused by blunt force by using the weapons which are having blunt edges, but here on careful perusal of the evidence of the Doctor and injury numbers 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10 are all lacerated wounds and further the injury Nos.1 to 3 which were said to be on the head and mandible and on the right shoulder were declared as simple injuries. Injury Nos.7 and 10 are the only injuries which show the fracture of lower end of ulna bone and fracture of proximal phalanx of right hand. The Doctor has also examined the x-ray report to give such opinion. So far as the other injuries are concerned, the Doctor has not described as to how those other injuries were grievous in nature as defined u/S 320 of IPC. The Doctor has also examined the x-ray report to give such opinion. So far as the other injuries are concerned, the Doctor has not described as to how those other injuries were grievous in nature as defined u/S 320 of IPC. Therefore, it goes without saying that if there is no explanation to establish that those injuries are also grievous in nature. The Court can draw inference that there were only two grievous injuries and other injuries were simple in nature. 36. On perusal of MOs5, 6 and 7 which are the weapons used by the accused, the Doctor has described them with a handwritten pictures as per Ex.P.8, 9 and 10, a koita, knife and a sickle. It is seen that front portion of those articles have sharp edge and back portion are blunt. The sharpness of the weapon and the weight of the weapon and also the force in which the assault was made creates a particular type of injuries. Therefore, when it cannot be with all certainty be said that, those injuries could not be caused with those weapons at all in view of the above said factual matrix of this case, particularly admission of the accused persons with regard to the happening of the incident, the evidence of PW28 cannot be easily brushed aside, because he is the person who sustained lot number of injuries at the hands of the accused and there is no reason as to why these accused persons have to be falsely implicated. There is no suggestion made to PW28 or to PW1 that they have suffered injuries due to some other incident from some other persons or in some other manner, but PW1 and 28 have taken advantage of that situation to falsely implicate the accused. 37. On the other hand, it is the case of the accused that PW28 had sustained those injuries in the house of accused No.1 and accused No.2 alone assaulted PW28 with a cutter. Even according to the learned counsel, the cutter is a sharp edged weapon just like small knife. If at all with the help of cutter those injuries are caused, it could caused an incise wound. When Court can not visualize as to what type of cutter that the accused No.2 had actually used to assault PW28, even for a moment, we accept the case of the accused. If at all with the help of cutter those injuries are caused, it could caused an incise wound. When Court can not visualize as to what type of cutter that the accused No.2 had actually used to assault PW28, even for a moment, we accept the case of the accused. Therefore, when the weapons alleged to have been seized in this particular case contain both sharp edge and blunt objects, it cannot be expected that, at the time of assault which portion of the weapon was used by the accused persons. PW28 also could not able to explain meticulously as to which portion of the weapon was used to assault him. Therefore, perhaps the blunt side of the weapon if it was also used for causing all those injuries found on PW28, that possibility also cannot be ruled out. Therefore, under the above said facts and circumstances, in my opinion, evidence of PW1 and 28 are in fact trustworthy, credible for acceptance in view of the defence taken by the accused in this particular case as they have not denied the injuries on PW28 and the assault taken place between the accused Nos.1 to 3 and PW28. 38. Having come to the above said conclusion that the accused persons are responsible for the assault of PW28, now the Court has to examine whether the above said acts of the accused fall within the category of the offence u/S 307 of the IPC. Sec. 307 of the IPC defines that: Whoever does any act with such intention or knowledge, and under such circumstances that, if he by that act caused death, he would be guilty of murder, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine; and if hurt is caused to any person by such act, the offender shall be liable either to imprisonment for life, or to such punishment as is hereinbefore mentioned. 39. Therefore, in order to attract this provision there must be an intention or knowledge on the part of the accused to be established that they really intended to cause death of a person, but, unfortunately the injured survived. 39. Therefore, in order to attract this provision there must be an intention or knowledge on the part of the accused to be established that they really intended to cause death of a person, but, unfortunately the injured survived. Therefore, in order to prove this particular aspect the Court has to consider nature of injuries sustained and also the treatment given and the evidence of the Doctor in order to ascertain whether those injuries are in the ordinary course sufficient to cause death of a person. Admittedly, in the evidence of PW8 except two injuries noted by me, the other injuries were considered to be simple in nature. The injuries on the head are simple in nature and no such grievous injuries caused to any vital part of the body. Therefore, it is very difficult to draw an inference that the accused have had really intended or having knowledge that those injuries would cause death of a person in the ordinary course, if the treatment was not given after the incident. 40. The prosecution also failed to elicit from the evidence of the Doctor to the effect that those injuries are sufficient to cause death of a person in the ordinary course if no treatment is given immediately after the accident. PW28, in fact, has never stated in his evidence how long he was in the hospital, what treatment he has taken, etc. in order to draw an inference for those injuries are so severe and grievous in nature and particularly on any vital part of the body of the victim so as to come to a definite conclusion that the accused persons have intended or having knowledge that their act would cause the death of PW28. Therefore, in my opinion, the offence u/S 307 of IPC cannot be conclusively said to have been established by the prosecution. Merely because the offence u/S 307 of IPC is not attracted, the Court has to examine whether the offences u/S 326 and 324 are attracted. 41. Sec. 326 and 324 of IPC deal with the offences which are voluntarily caused by the accused. Sec. 326 and 324, if they are read together, both of them says that, it is the voluntarily causing grievous or simple hurt to the injured by means of using some weapon. 41. Sec. 326 and 324 of IPC deal with the offences which are voluntarily caused by the accused. Sec. 326 and 324, if they are read together, both of them says that, it is the voluntarily causing grievous or simple hurt to the injured by means of using some weapon. Here using of the weapon and causing of grievous injuries and simple injuries are established as narrated above. Therefore, I am of the opinion, though the prosecution has not proved the case beyond reasonable doubt for the offence u/S 307 of IPC but it successfully established and proved the commission of the offence by the accused u/S 324 and 326 of the IPC. 42. It is also established that the accused persons and the PW28 have quarrelled and PW28 has stated that the accused persons have used abusive words with filthy language. It is also clear from the evidence that PW28 was on duty at that particular point of time. Therefore, the offence u/S 333 of IPC can also be said to have been committed. Therefore, in my opinion, if the accused is convicted for the offences u/S 326, 333 and 504 of IPC, it would meet the ends of justice. But, the accused-appellants are not liable to be convicted u/S 307 of the IPC. 43. Of course, the learned counsel has contended that the appellants have already undergone more than six months imprisonment and the custodial period itself can be treated as sentence upon them. But, looking to the nature of offences committed, particularly on the Police officials and the nature of injuries caused, some of them are grievous in nature and they have assaulted indiscriminately on the body of PW28, in my opinion, the said period of six months becomes most inadequate on the appellants-accused. Therefore, in my opinion, sentencing them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years for the offence u/S 326 of IPC and imposing fine of Rs.50,000/- each, in default to undergo further simple imprisonment for six months and also sentencing them to undergo simple imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- each for the offence u/S 333 of IPC, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for three months and also sentencing the accused No.1 to undergo simple imprisonment for six months for the offence u/S 504 of IPC would meet the ends of justice. With these observations, I proceed to pass the following order. ORDER The appeal is partly allowed. The judgment of conviction and sentence for the offence punishable u/S 307 of IPC is hereby set aside. The judgment of conviction and sentence passed on accused No.1 for the offence u/s 504 and 333 of IPC are hereby confirmed. The accused Nos.1 and 3/appellants are convicted for the offence u/S 326 of IPC. The accused are sentenced as under: (i) Accused No.1 is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for six months for the offence punishable u/S 504 of IPC; (ii) Accused Nos.1 and 3 are sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years for the offence u/S 326 of IPC and to pay a fine of Rs.50,000/- each, in default of payment of fine, to undergo further simple imprisonment for six months; (iii) Accused Nos.1 and 3 are sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- each for the offence u/S 333 of IPC, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for three months. Accordingly, the accused persons are directed to serve the remaining sentence in accordance with law. The rest of the order of the trial Court with regard to awarding of compensation and the destruction of the properties is not disturbed. The accused/appellants are also entitled for set off in accordance with law as per Section 428 of Cr.P.C.