JUDGMENT : 1. This appeal is preferred by the appellants accused Nos.1 to 4 against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed in S.C.No.188/2014 dated 27.11.2017 by the I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Kolar for the offence punishable under Sections 323 and 324 read with Section 34 IPC. Accused Nos.1 to 4 are sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three (03) months and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/each and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month for the offence punishable under Section 323 read with 34 of IPC and further they are sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six (06) months and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/each and in the event of default to pay the fine amount to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month for the offence punishable under Section 324 read with 34 of IPC. 2. The prosecution case in nutshell is that the complainant Ramesh and his brother viz., accused No.1Mohan are residing in one and the same house along with their wife and children by partitioning the said house by constructing a common wall. On 04.01.2012, the partition wall fell down. Therefore, accused No.1Mohan and his wife accused No.2Rukmini with an intention to grab the property belonging to the complainant started quarreling with them, but he did not leave the possession of the said house in which he was residing. On 04.01.2012, when the complainant was speaking to his elder brother over mobile phone, accused No.1Mohan, his wife Rukmini (accused No.2), his brothers-in-law viz., Babu (accused No.3) and Manjunath (accused No.4) and his father-in-law Ashwathappa (accused No.5) along with four others came with the club, iron rod, macchuand knife in their hands and picked up quarrel with the complainant. Accused No.1Mohan assaulted the complainant with club on his thighs; accused No.2Rukmini assaulted the complainant on his back with the club; accused No.3 assaulted the complainant with iron rod on the right side of the forehead and accused No.4Manjunath assaulted the complainant with the knife on his right elbow and right little finger. Accused No.5 Ashwathappa assaulted the complainant with stone on the left elbow and caused the injuries. The injured complainant was taken to Mulbagal Government Hospital. Accused No.5 Ashwathappa assaulted the complainant with stone on the left elbow and caused the injuries. The injured complainant was taken to Mulbagal Government Hospital. All accused with an intention to grab the house property belonging to the complainant have assaulted him with an intention to commit the murder. 3. On registering the case, the Police have conducted the investigation and have filed the charge sheet against accused Nos.1 to 5 along with four others for the offence punishable under Sections 323, 324, 504, 307, 109 read with Section 149 of IPC. After committal of the case, the accused persons appeared and the charges were framed against accused Nos.1 to 4 other accused were discharged from the case. 4. The prosecution has examined 13 witnesses as P.Ws.1 to 13 and the documents are marked as per Exhibits P1 to P16. The material objects are marked as M.Os.1 to 11. Thereafter, the statement of accused were recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. and all the accused have denied the incriminating circumstances. 5. On appreciating the oral and documentary evidence placed on record, the trial Court has held accused Nos.1 to 4 guilty of the offence punishable under Sections 323 and 324 read with 34 of IPC. Being aggrieved by the said judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the trial Court, accused Nos.1 to 4 have preferred this appeal. 6. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants accused Nos.1 to 4 and learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent state, perused impugned judgment and the trial Court records. 7. Learned counsel for the appellants would strenuously contend that accused No.1 and the complainant (injured victim) are brothers and other accused are close relatives. On account of the dispute regarding the partition wall, a false case has been registered against the accused persons with the vindictive motive to harass the accused persons. The accused had no intention whatsoever to commit the murder, even the injuries caused are not on the vital part of the body. Even according to the medical certificate issued as per Ex.P8, the injury Nos.1 to 4 are simple in nature and injury No.5 was a minor fracture of the tibia bone. The alleged incident has happened without there being any premeditation, thus, the sentence imposed by the trial Court is disproportionate and the same is liable to be set aside. 8. Even according to the medical certificate issued as per Ex.P8, the injury Nos.1 to 4 are simple in nature and injury No.5 was a minor fracture of the tibia bone. The alleged incident has happened without there being any premeditation, thus, the sentence imposed by the trial Court is disproportionate and the same is liable to be set aside. 8. Per contra, learned HCGP has submitted that P.W.1 is the injured victim; P.W.2 is the eyewitness to the incident. P.W.1 has clearly stated regarding the overt acts and the assault done by each of the accused with the weapons. Nothing much is elicited in the cross-examination of P.W.1 to disbelieve his evidence. Merely because the independent eyewitnesses are not examined is not a ground to discard the evidence of injured victim. There is satisfactory evidence to prove that accused Nos.1 to 4 have assaulted P.W.1 injured complainant and have caused the injuries. Thus, there are no grounds to interfere with the well reasoned judgment and order passed by the trial Court and hence, the appeal deserves to be dismissed. 9. In view of the submission of the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned HCGP, the only point that arises for consideration is: “Whether the trial Court was justified in convicting the accused Nos.1 to 4 for the offence punishable under Sections 323 and 324 of IPC?” 10. It is the duty of the Court to consider the trustworthiness of the evidence placed on record, as the witnesses are eyes and ears of justice, hence, it is necessary to ascertain whether the evidence of the prosecution is filled with any contradictions, improbabilities and variations to come to the conclusion that these witnesses cannot be relied on to convict the accused. Thus, I have given the cursory glance to the oral and documentary evidence placed on record. 11. It is an admitted fact that the injured complainant and accused No.1 are brothers and accused Nos.2 to 4 are the wife and brothers-in-law of accused No.1. According to the prosecution, the motive for commission of the offence is the dispute regarding common wall in the house property, the same has not been denied by the accused. 12. 11. It is an admitted fact that the injured complainant and accused No.1 are brothers and accused Nos.2 to 4 are the wife and brothers-in-law of accused No.1. According to the prosecution, the motive for commission of the offence is the dispute regarding common wall in the house property, the same has not been denied by the accused. 12. P.W.1Ramesh, the injured complainant, has stated in his examination in chief that two years prior to the incident, they had partitioned their ancestral house and both the injured complainant and his brother (accused No.1) were residing in the said house by constructing a partition wall. On 04.01.2012, the said partition wall had collapsed. When the complainant came back to his house at night hours, all the accused had assembled there, by looking at them, he called his elder brother Gopal Krishna, at that time, accused Nos.1 to 4 assaulted him with weapons. Accused No.1Mohan assaulted with club on his legs, accused No.3Babu assaulted with iron rod on his head and legs, accused No.4Manjunath assaulted with knife on his head and right little finger, accused No.2Rukmini assaulted him on his back with clubs. When he shouted for help, his wife P.W.2 came to the spot, she was also assaulted by the accused persons. Meanwhile, 34 villagers came to the spot and the injured complainant was taken to the hospital. When he was taking treatment in the hospital, the Police have recorded his statement, which is marked as Ex.P1. On 18.02.2012, the Police have recorded his further statement, P.W.1 has identified the clubs, iron rod and the knife, which are marked as M.Os.1 to 4. The blood stained clothes were identified by him are marked as M.Os.5 to 7. P.W.1 is cross-examined at length, but nothing much is elicited to disbelieve his evidence. He has denied the suggestion that at the time of incident, there was no electricity supply. He has further stated that when the accused persons assaulted him, there were bleeding injuries as such, blood spill on the mud. He has denied the suggestion that accused Nos.1 to 4 have not assaulted him. 13. P.W.2Soubhagyamma, the wife of P.W.1, is the eyewitness to the incident, she has stated that by hearing the screaming voice of her husband she went to the spot, by then, the accused had assaulted her husband, when she tried to save her husband, accused have assaulted her. 13. P.W.2Soubhagyamma, the wife of P.W.1, is the eyewitness to the incident, she has stated that by hearing the screaming voice of her husband she went to the spot, by then, the accused had assaulted her husband, when she tried to save her husband, accused have assaulted her. On account of the assault done by accused Nos.1 to 4, her husband had sustained injuries. At that time the villagers viz., Nagaraju, Appayanna, Lokesh, Jayaram, Gajendra and Kailas pacified the quarrel. Thereafter, her husband was shifted to Mulbagal Government Hospital through ambulance. She has also identified the weapons used by accused persons, which are already marked as M.Os.1 to 4 and the blood stained clothes as M.Os.5 to 7. In the cross examination, she has stated that the incident has taken place at about 10.00 p.m., as such there was darkness. She has admitted that she cannot say how many people gathered at the spot. She has admitted that some villagers had not accompanied her husband to the hospital, but her children had come there. She has denied the suggestion that on 04.01.2012 no incident has taken place and the accused have not assaulted them. 14. P.W.3Gajendra is the eyewitness, he has stated that on the date of incident night at about 9.00 p.m. there was a quarrel between accused and P.W.1 and the accused were holding clubs, iron rods and knife, when he went to the spot, P.W.1 had sustained bleeding injuries, thereafter, accused fled away from the spot. The injured victim was sent to Mulbagal Government Hospital through ambulance. He has stated that he does not know for what reason the quarrel took place and he has not seen who has assaulted P.W.2 Soubhagya. This witness was treated as hostile, even though there was no reason. The evidence given by him in his examination in chief supports the case of the prosecution. 15. P.W.4 is hearsay witness, he has stated that on getting the information from the son of the injured victim, he went to the spot and noticed the injuries on the legs of the complainant Ramesh, then he made arrangements to get the ambulance to send him to hospital. In the cross-examination by the learned PP, he has denied the suggestion that he has seen the assault done by accused Nos.1 to 4 with an intention to kill him. 16. In the cross-examination by the learned PP, he has denied the suggestion that he has seen the assault done by accused Nos.1 to 4 with an intention to kill him. 16. P.W.5 is also a hearsay witness who had gone to the spot after the incident. 17. P.W.9 is the Medical Officer, who has examined the injured victim and has issued the medical certificate as per Ex.P8. According to the said witness, the injured victim had sustained five injuries, which are as under: 1. Cut lacerated wound on scalp 4X2 cm. 2. Cut lacerated wound on the right forearm 3X2 cm. 3. Cut lacerated wound on the left leg 3X2 cm. 4. Cut lacerated wound on the right leg 6X2 cm. 5. Xray shows open type I proximal end fracture of left tibia with open type I distal and fracture of right Tibia. He has opined that except injury No.5 i.e., the fracture of proximal end of left tibia, the remaining injuries are simple in nature. 18. The remaining witnesses are the officials, whose version corroborates with the evidence of the injured victim and other eyewitness. 19. On re-appreciation of the evidence placed on record, this Court is of the view that the trial Court has rightly come to the conclusion that accused have committed the offence alleged under Sections 323 and 324 of IPC. 20. It is pertinent to note that the trial Court has sentenced accused Nos.1 to 4 to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/each in respect of the offence punishable under Section 324 read with 34 of IPC and has further sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/each in respect of the offence punishable under Section 323 read with 34 of IPC and in default of payment of fine all the accused are sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month. 21. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the sentence imposed by the trial Court is too harsh and disproportionate. Accused No.1 is none other than the brother of the complainant and is also residing along with the complainant in the same house. Accused No.2 is the wife of accused No.1 and accused Nos.3 and 4 are the close relatives of accused No.1. Accused No.1 is none other than the brother of the complainant and is also residing along with the complainant in the same house. Accused No.2 is the wife of accused No.1 and accused Nos.3 and 4 are the close relatives of accused No.1. The imposition of sentence will put the accused to hardship, as such there are valid grounds for setting aside or modification of sentence imposed by the trial Court. 22. It is an admitted fact that accused No.1, his wife and the complainant along with his family are residing the same house and there was dispute between both the parties regarding partition wall, which had collapsed. There was no premeditation whatsoever for the alleged incident. There was a quarrel on account of sudden and grave provocation, which has led to the incident of assault. Thus, in my opinion, the sentence imposed viz., 6 months of simple imprisonment for the offence punishable under Section 324 and simple imprisonment for a period of three months for the offence punishable under Section 323 of IPC appears to be disproportionate. 23. In the instant case, the trial Court has imposed the fine on the accused for a sum of Rs.5,000/each for the offence punishable under Section 324 IPC and Rs.1,000/each for the offence punishable under Section 323 IPC. In view of the submission of the learned HCGP that the said fine amount may be enhanced instead of sentencing them to imprisonment. 24. For the foregoing reasons, this Court is of the view that there is cogent evidence to prove the offence alleged against the accused persons, but there are valid grounds reasons for modification of sentence as the same appears to be disproportionate. Hence, I pass the following: i. The appeal is partly allowed. ii. 24. For the foregoing reasons, this Court is of the view that there is cogent evidence to prove the offence alleged against the accused persons, but there are valid grounds reasons for modification of sentence as the same appears to be disproportionate. Hence, I pass the following: i. The appeal is partly allowed. ii. Consequently, the judgment and order dated 27.11.2017 passed in S.C.No.188/2014 by the I Additional Sessions Judge at Kolar is hereby set aside and the same is modified as under: Accused Nos.1 to 4 are sentenced to pay fine of Rs.10,000/each for the offence punishable under Section 324 read with 34 of IPC and in default to pay fine amount, they shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month for the offence punishable under Section 324 of IPC and further accused Nos.1 to 4 are sentenced to pay fine of Rs.2,000/each for the offence punishable under Section 323 read with 34 IPC and in default to pay fine amount, they shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month for the offence punishable under Section 323 of IPC. The enhanced fine amount shall be deposited by the accused within a period of two months from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment. Out of the fine total amount, 50% of the amount shall be paid to P.W.1Ramesh, the injured victim, towards compensation. Registry is directed to send back the records to the concerned trial Court with the copy of this judgment forthwith