Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 678 (KAR)

Kumara v. State Of Karnataka

2020-03-09

H.B.PRABHAKARA SASTRY

body2020
JUDGMENT 1. The present appellant was the sole accused in Sessions Case No.132/2013 in the Court of the I Additional Sessions Judge at Mysore (hereinafter for brevity referred to as 'Trial Court'), who, by the judgment of the said Trial Court dated 02-04-2014 was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter for brevity referred to as 'IPC') and was sentenced accordingly. Challenging the said judgment of conviction and order on sentence, the appellant/accused has preferred this appeal. 2. The summary of the case of the prosecution is that, on 15-01-2012 at about 8:30 a.m., when PW-1 - Smt. Pushpa and PW-3 - Smt. Saraswathi were proceeding in front of the house of the accused talking inter se that, some body had cut the beetle leaves grown by them in their land and have caused damage to their standing crop, the accused, who over heard it, came out of his house and telling that it was he who had cut the same and challenging them to do whatever they wanted to do against him, assaulted both PW-1 and PW-3 with Machete and club and caused injuries to them and attempted to kill PW-3 Saraswathi. He also tore the blouse worn by PW-1 - Smt. Pushpa and thus has committed the offences punishable under Sections 307, 324 and 354 of IPC. 3. The charges for the alleged offences were framed against the accused, who pleaded not guilty. As such, in order to prove the alleged guilt against the accused, the prosecution examined in all, ten witnesses from PW-1 to PW-10 and got marked documents from exhibits P-1 to P-12 and five Material Objects from MO-1 to MO-5. Though the accused did not examine any witness from his side, however, a portion of the statement of PW-5 was marked as Ex.D-1 in the cross-examination of the said witness. 4. After hearing both side, the Trial Court by its impugned judgment of conviction dated 02-04-2014 and order on sentence dated 07-04-2014, acquitted the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 354 and 307 of IPC and convicted him for the offence punishable under Section 324 of IPC. Challenging the said judgment of conviction and order on sentence, the accused has preferred this appeal. 5. The trial Court records were called for and the same are placed before this Court. 6. Challenging the said judgment of conviction and order on sentence, the accused has preferred this appeal. 5. The trial Court records were called for and the same are placed before this Court. 6. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent State. 7. Perused the material placed before this Court including the impugned judgment and also Trial Court records. 8. For the sake of convenience, the parties would be referred to as per their ranks before the Trial Court. 9. Learned counsel for the appellant/accused in his arguments submitted that it is not in dispute that the accused is the cousin brother of PW-5 Prakasha, which Prakasha is the husband of PW-1 - Smt. Pusha and PW-3 Smt. Saraswathi. He further submits that it is also not in dispute that there was some dispute between PW-5 and the accused with respect to their lands. Learned counsel further submits that though PW-1 and PW-3 might have sustained some injuries, same is with regard to some altercation, wherein, PW-1 and PW-3 tried to pull the shirt of the accused and fell by themselves on the ground by loosing balance and sustained injuries. Learned counsel further submits that the evidence of PW-1 and PW-3 varies inter se in as much as the evidence of PW-3 Saraswathi that the accused also sprinkled chilli powder on her eyes does not find any place in her statement given before the Investigating Officer. Learned counsel also submits that as per the Doctor, the injured have given the history stating that the assault was by using a stone, whereas the alleged weapon produced by the prosecution as the weapons of commissioning the crime was a Machete at MO-1 and a club at MO-2. Learned counsel continuing his argument regarding mismanaging of the description of the weapons further says that, there is no evidence as to who gave the said MO-1 and MO-2 to the Investigating Officer since PW-2 has turned hostile on the said point. With this, he submits that since there are some serious doubts in the case of the prosecution, the appeal deserves to be allowed. However, before concluding, he also submits that considering the relationship of the parties, giving the benefit under the Probation of Offenders Act to the appellant/accused also may be considered. 10. With this, he submits that since there are some serious doubts in the case of the prosecution, the appeal deserves to be allowed. However, before concluding, he also submits that considering the relationship of the parties, giving the benefit under the Probation of Offenders Act to the appellant/accused also may be considered. 10. Learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent State, in his argument submitted that the alleged rivalry between the parties, their relationship, the injuries sustained by PW-1 - Pusha and PW-3 - Saraswathi and the presence of accused at the time of incident, have all remained undisputed. In such a situation, even though the alleged eye witnesses have not fully supported the case of the prosecution, but the evidence of injured witnesses, more particularly PW-1 Pushpa and PW-3 Saraswathi cannot be lost sight of. Their evidence proves to be trustworthy and reliable which in turn proves the guilt of the accused of the alleged offence. Learned High Court Government Pleader submits that considering the nature of the offence, not only the appeal deserves to be dismissed, but taking a lenient view by reducing the punishment also does not warrant to be considered. 11. In the light of the above, the points that arise for my consideration in this appeal are:- [i] whether the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that on 15-01-2012 at about 8:30 a.m., the accused assaulted PW-1 Pushpa and PW-3 - Saraswathi with the weapons at MO-1 and MO-2 and has caused injuries to them and thereby has committed the offence punishable under Section 324 of IPC? [ii] Whether the judgment under appeal deserves any interference at the hands of this Court? 12. Among the ten witnesses examined by the prosecution, the material witnesses are primarily PW-1 Pushpa and PW-3 Saraswathi, who are the alleged injured witnesses by themselves. In addition to them, the prosecution has also relied upon PW-2 and PW-4, projecting them as eye witnesses to the incident. Admittedly, PW-5 Prakasha is the husband of PW-1 Pushpa and PW-3 - Saraswathi. However, he was not an eye witness to the incident. 13. PW-1 Pushpa and PW-3 Saraswathi have stated that they are respectively the second and first wife of PW-5 - Prakasha and the accused is the cousin brother of their husband Prakasha. Admittedly, PW-5 Prakasha is the husband of PW-1 Pushpa and PW-3 - Saraswathi. However, he was not an eye witness to the incident. 13. PW-1 Pushpa and PW-3 Saraswathi have stated that they are respectively the second and first wife of PW-5 - Prakasha and the accused is the cousin brother of their husband Prakasha. They have also stated that the land of the accused is adjoining to their lands and that, there was a dispute between them since earlier time. About the incident, both these witnesses have uniformly stated that on the date of incident, which was on 15-01-2012, after visiting their garden, where they had grown beetle leaves, while they were returning home at about 8:30 a.m., they were talking between themselves that some body had destroyed the buds of beetle leaves which they had grown in their garden. At that time, they were passing in front of the house of the accused. The said accused hearing the same came out of his house and stating that it was him who had cut those beetle leaves and challenged them as to what they could do for him. Stating so, and uttering that he would kill them, he assaulted PW-3 - Saraswathi with a machete he was holding. PW-1 - Pushpa snatched the said machete from his hand. At that time, he took out a club from the spot and assaulted her. At the yelling noise of these two injured ladies, Harisha, Dinesha and Ravi rushed there and rescued them. Thereafter, both of them were shifted to K.R. Nagara Hospital for treatment since they were injured. PW-1 has further stated that while they (and also PW-3) were under treatment in the Hospital, the Police visited them and she has given her complaint as per Ex.P-1. Both these witnesses have identified the alleged weapons, i.e. machete and club at MO-1 and MO-2 respectively. Further, a blouse said to have been worn by PW-3 at the time of the incident has also been identified by them at MO-3. Even in their cross-examination, both the witnesses have adhered to their original versions. 14. PW-2 Ravi and PW-4 Harisha H.B., who were projected as eye witnesses to the alleged incident, have uniformly stated in their evidence that on the date of incident, by the time they went to the spot of the offence, the dispute had already come to an end. 14. PW-2 Ravi and PW-4 Harisha H.B., who were projected as eye witnesses to the alleged incident, have uniformly stated in their evidence that on the date of incident, by the time they went to the spot of the offence, the dispute had already come to an end. However, PW-1 and PW-3 had sustained injuries and both of them shifted the injured to the Hospital. PW-2 has further stated that the Police drew a scene of offence panchanama as per Ex.P-2 in which he has put his signature. However, he stated that no articles were seized by the Police in his presence. Since the witness did not support the case of the prosecution with respect to the alleged seizure of MO-1 and MO-2, he was treated as hostile and the prosecution was permitted to cross-examine him, despite which, the prosecution could not get any support from him. In the cross-examination from the accused side, the witness has further reiterated about his presence in the spot and stated that the injured Saraswathi (PW-3) was shifted to the Hospital in an autorickshaw. PW-4 also did not mention anything about the weapon said to have been used in the commission of the crime. He was also treated as hostile and permitted to be cross-examined by the prosecution, wherein, he adhered to his original version and not supported the further case of the prosecution. 15. PW-5 Prakasha is undisputedly the husband of PW-1 - Pusha and PW-3 - Saraswathi, who has also stated that few days prior to the present incident, i.e. on 11-01-2012, with respect to grazing of a cattle of the accused in his land, a dispute had taken place between himself and accused. In the said dispute, the accused had assaulted him, as such, being injured he was admitted as an inpatient in the Government Hospital at K.R.Nagara till 16-01-2012. It was during that time on 15-01-2012 while his both wives were returning home from the garden, the accused assaulted them with machete. In his cross- examination, he submitted that he has not stated before the Police that as on the date of alleged incident, he was near his land. The said portion of his statement was marked at Ex.D-1. It was during that time on 15-01-2012 while his both wives were returning home from the garden, the accused assaulted them with machete. In his cross- examination, he submitted that he has not stated before the Police that as on the date of alleged incident, he was near his land. The said portion of his statement was marked at Ex.D-1. Further, the witness reiterated that as on the said date, he was inpatient in the K.R. Nagara Hospital, with respect to which a Certificate was produced by him and got it marked at Ex.P-4(a). 16. PW-6 H.R. Dinesha has stated that the Police have drawn the scene of offence panchanama as per Ex.P-2 in his presence and at the time of panchanama, the Police have sized the weapons at MO-1 and MO-2, blood stained mud and sample mud under a panchanama, which articles he has identified at MO-1, MO-2, MO-4 and MO-5 respectively. However, in his cross-examination, he has stated that he does not know as to who produced MO-1 and MO-2. 17. PW-7 M.N. Harisha has also stated that the scene of offence panchanama as per Ex.P-2 was drawn in his presence. As per Ex.P-2, where under, the Police from the spot have seized MO-1, MO-2, MO-4 and MO-5. He has identified all those Material Objects. 18. PW-8 Dr. T.R. Dayananda has stated in his evidence that, while working as a Senior Specialist at Taluka General Hospital in K.R. Nagara on 15-01-2012 at about 11:00 a.m., he had examined two injured patients by names Smt. Pushpa and Smt. Saraswathi respectively. After giving description of the injuries, he has stated that injuries sustained by both the patients were simple in nature. He has stated that the patients have given the history of the injuries as an assault by one Sri. Kumara with a stone. After seeing MO-1 and MO-2 in the Court, the witness has stated that, the injuries found on the injured are possible to be caused by said weapons. In his cross-examination, he admitted a suggestion as true that the history given to him before treating the patients was an assault by a stone. He also admitted a suggestion that lacerations could be caused due to accidental fall on a sharp edge of the culverts. 19. In his cross-examination, he admitted a suggestion as true that the history given to him before treating the patients was an assault by a stone. He also admitted a suggestion that lacerations could be caused due to accidental fall on a sharp edge of the culverts. 19. PW-9 Rudrappa Gowda, the Head Constable in the respondent - Police Station has stated that on 15-01-2012, when he was in-charge of the Station, he received a Medico-Legal Case (MLC) from Government Hospital, K.R. Nagara, as such, he proceeded to said Hospital and after ascertaining the condition of the patients from the Doctor, he recorded the statement of the injured Pushpa and having returned to the Station produced the same before the Police Sub-Inspector. 20. PW-10 - M.R. Lava - the Investigating Officer in this case has stated that while working as a Police Sub-Inspector of the respondent - Police Station, on 15-01-2012, he received the statement of injured produced by Head Constable (PW-9) as per Ex.P-1 and based on the same, he registered a case against the accused in their Station Crime No.16/2012 for the offences punishable under Sections 324, 307, 354 of IPC and sent the FIR to the Court. On the same day, he visited the scene of offence and in the presence of the panchas, drew a scene of offence panchanama as per Ex.P-2. From the spot, he collected blood stained mud and sample mud. He also seized a machete and a club used by the accused in the commission of the crime. He identified those articles at MO-1, Mo-2 MO-4 and MO-5. The witness also stated that he prepared a rough sketch of the scene of offence and on the same day, he recorded the statement of several of the witnesses including PW-3 Saraswathi, Ravi, Harish, Chandra and Prakasha. The witness further stated that, on 16-01-2012, he seized the blouse said to have been used by injured Pushpa at the time of incident under a panchanama as per Ex.P-5 which the witness has identified at MO-3. He has also stated that on 28-03-2012, he sent the seized articles for their examination to the Regional Forensic Science Laboratory at Mysore. The witness has further stated that on 29-03-2012., he collected the Wound Certificates of both the injured from the treating Doctor as per Exs.P-6 and P-7. He has also stated that on 28-03-2012, he sent the seized articles for their examination to the Regional Forensic Science Laboratory at Mysore. The witness has further stated that on 29-03-2012., he collected the Wound Certificates of both the injured from the treating Doctor as per Exs.P-6 and P-7. He received the Forensic Science Laboratory report as per Ex.P-11 and also collected the report from the Doctor about the use of the weapon in causing injuries that were found on the injured. After collecting the said report as per Ex.P-8, completing the investigation, he has filed the charge sheet against the accused. The denial suggestions made to the witness was not admitted as true by him. 21. A perusal of the above evidence led by the prosecution would clearly go to show that the relationship of the accused with the injured is not in dispute. It is also an undisputed fact that PW-5 - Prakasha who is the husband of injured witnesses - PW-1 Pushpa and PW-3 Saraswathi, was the cousin brother of the accused herein. It is also not in dispute that the accused and PW-5 having their respective agricultural lands adjacent to each other had also developed some dispute between them. Further, the evidence of prosecution witnesses including PW-1, PW-2, PW-3, PW-4 and PW-5 would go to show that, on the alleged date of incident which was on 15-01-2012, some incident has taken place in front of the house of accused Kumara, wherein PW-1 - Pushpa and PW-3 Saraswathi, the wives of PW-5 - Prakasha have sustained some injuries. Though PW-2 and PW-3 were projected as eye witnesses to the incident, but they have supported the case of the prosecution only to the extent of narrating about some incident occurring in front of the house of the accused Kumara, on the said date, resulting in PW-1 Pushpa and PW-3 Saraswathi sustaining some injuries. However, neither of them has spoken anything about the alleged overt act of the accused against PW-1 and PW-3. Thus, it is only PW-1 and PW-3 who have spoken about the role of the accused in the alleged assault upon them. However, neither of them has spoken anything about the alleged overt act of the accused against PW-1 and PW-3. Thus, it is only PW-1 and PW-3 who have spoken about the role of the accused in the alleged assault upon them. Both of them have uniformly stated that objecting to their conversation that some body had destroyed the buds of the beetle leaves in their garden, accused came out of his house and stating that it was he who had done it, challenged them and assaulted them with a machete and a club. 22. Among PW-1 and PW-3, who are said to be the injured witnesses, PW-3 has stated that, when she was assaulted with a machete by the accused on her head, she sustained bleeding injuries and fell unconscious on the spot and was admitted and when she regained consciousness, she was in a Government Hospital at K.R. Nagara. However, since she did not speak anything about the accused assaulting PW-1 Pushpa, the witness was treated as hostile and the prosecution was permitted to cross- examine her. In her cross-examination, PW-3 - Saraswathi admitted the suggestions as true that in the incident, accused also assaulted PW-1 - Pushpa with a club at MO-2 and injured her. 23. PW-1 - Pushpa also supported the case of the prosecution giving the details about the incident on the same line as that of PW-3 - Saraswathi. So far as accused assaulting PW-3 is concerned, though PW-1 has stated that, after she snatching machete from the hands of the accused, he took a club from the spot and assaulted her on her head. Thus, according to this witness, first, it was the accused who assaulted PW-3 Saraswathi followed by assaulting her (PW-1). However, the said PW-3 Saraswathi has stated that, immediately after she was assaulted by accused, she fell unconscious and regained her conscious only in the Hospital at K.R.Nagara. Then it remains doubtful as to how come the said witness can say about the accused assaulting PW-1 since the said event of accused assaulting PW-1 was subsequent to the accused assaulting PW-3. It is probably for the said reason, the said PW-3 initially in her examination- in-chief did not speak anything about the accused assaulting PW-1 - Pushpa and causing her injuries. However, she has admitted suggestions made to that effect by the prosecution as true only in her cross- examination. It is probably for the said reason, the said PW-3 initially in her examination- in-chief did not speak anything about the accused assaulting PW-1 - Pushpa and causing her injuries. However, she has admitted suggestions made to that effect by the prosecution as true only in her cross- examination. Therefore, from the same, it can be inferred that PW-3 though is an injured in the incident, but she has not seen the accused assaulting PW-1 Pushpa with a club. On the other hand, PW-1 has not only seen the accused assaulting PW-3 - Saraswathi with a machete /machhu, but, she too was assaulted by the very same accused but with a club. The said evidence of PW-1 and PW-3 since inspires confidence to believe, merely because the alleged eye witnesses i.e. PW-2 and PW-4 are not said to have supported the case of the prosecution stating that, it was the accused who assaulted them, the evidence of PW-1 and PW-3 cannot be disbelieved. It is also for the reason that even according to PW-2 and PW-4, some incident has taken place and hearing the same, they rushed to the place. According to PW-2, the information received by him was that some altercation had taken place between the accused and PW-1 Pushpa, which means, before going to the spot, he was also given the knowledge that there was some altercation that was going on between the accused and PW-1. The witness has further stated that by the time he reached the spot, PW-3 Saraswathi had already sustained injury on her head and blood was oozing out from it. It is thereafter, himself (PW-2) joined by PW-4 - Harish shifted the injured to the Hospital. The said evidence of PW-2 that after receiving information about an altercation between the accused and PW-1, he went to the spot and his evidence that, in the spot, he too noticed PW-2 sustaining injuries on her head, has remained un-denied and undisputed in his cross- examination, as such, the evidence of PW-2 and PW-4 though does not specifically mention about the alleged overt act of the accused in the commission of the crime, but, what clearly go to show is that, the incident involving accused, PW-1 and PW-3 had taken place in front of the house of the accused where at PW-3 - Saraswathi had sustained bleeding injuries upon her head. The said evidence of PW-1, PW-2, PW-3 and PW-4 wherein about the role of the accused, evidence of injured witnesses, i.e. PW-1 and PW-3 can be believed, clearly go to establish that both PW-1 Pushpa and PW-3 - Saraswathi have sustained injuries as a result of the assault committed against them by the accused. 24. The said statement of PW-1 and PW-3 that they were assaulted by the accused which resulted in they sustaining injuries is further corroborated by the evidence of the Doctor, i.e. PW-8 to the extent as to the injuries sustained by PW-1 and PW-3. The said Doctor has stated that when he examined PW-1 Pushpa, he noticed an abrasion wound on the right elbow measuring 3 x 5 cms and lacerated wound on the centro scalp measuring 4 x 4 cms. The witness has also stated that in his examination of PW-3 - another injured, he noticed a lacerated wound on the left side of the scalp measuring 10 cms. and pain in the shoulder of PW-3. The Doctor has opined that all those injuries suffered by PW-1 and PW-3 were simple in nature. Thus, the evidence of PW-1 and PW-3 that they were assaulted by the accused is further corroborated by the medical evidence that, they had sustained some simple injuries also. 25. Learned counsel for the appellant in his argument on the evidence of Doctor and the alleged use of MO-1 and MO-2 in the commission of the crime stated that, the history of the injuries as given by the injured before the Doctor would go to show that, though it was said to be an assault by the accused Kumara, but, the same was with a stone. On the contrary, the evidence of PW-1 and PW-3 is that they were assaulted with a machete and a club. Therefore, there is mismatching of the alleged weapons said to have been used in the commission of the crime, which prevents in accepting that the prosecutions case has been proved beyond reasonable doubt. 26. PW-1 and PW-2 have stated that the weapons used in the commission of the crime was a machete and a club respectively which they have identified at MO-1 and MO-2 respectively. 26. PW-1 and PW-2 have stated that the weapons used in the commission of the crime was a machete and a club respectively which they have identified at MO-1 and MO-2 respectively. PW-1 has not only stated that accused assaulted PW-3 Saraswathi with a machete, but she has proceeded to say that, when he assaulted PW-3, she snatched the said machete from the hands of the accused. Thus, she has given some more details about the use of MO-1 in the commission of the crime. Further, both the witnesses and more particularly, PW-1 - Pushpa has identified the weapons at MO-1 and MO-2 in the Court. Though in their cross- examination, it was suggested to PW-1 that, machete at MO-1 does not bear any special mark and that it is available in the house of every farmer in that area and the witness admitted that it is available in the farmers house, however, she has stated that she can categorically say that it was the very same machete with which they were assaulted. With respect to the club at MO-2 also, the witness has specifically and categorically stated that, she has identified the said club as the one used in the commission of the crime. Thus, the injured witness - PW-1 Pushpa has categorically and specifically identified the weapons at MO-1 and MO-2 as the one used in the commission of the crime. 27. Similarly, the panchas for the alleged seizure of the weapons are PW-2, PW-6 and PW-7. PW-2 has not stated that the Police have not seized any articles in his presence from the spot, whereas, PW-6 and PW-7 have stated that the weapons at MO-1 and MO-2 along with MO-4 and MO-5 were seized in their presence from the spot. Thus, apart from PW-1 - the injured witness and even panchas to the seizure panchanama, more particularly, PW-4 and PW-6 have categorically stated about the seizure of MO-1 and MO-2 from the spot under Ex.P-2. The evidence of the Investigating Officer i.e. PW-10 that he seized MO-1, MO-2, MO-4 and MO-5 from the spot under Ex.P-2 is thus corroborated by the evidence of PW-4 and PW-6. The evidence of the Investigating Officer i.e. PW-10 that he seized MO-1, MO-2, MO-4 and MO-5 from the spot under Ex.P-2 is thus corroborated by the evidence of PW-4 and PW-6. This takes away the doubt expressed by the learned counsel for the appellant about the use of MO-1 and MO-2 in the commission of the crime and his contention that it was a stone that was used in the commission of the crime. 28. No doubt, PW-8 - Doctor has stated that the history given to him by the injured was an assault by the accused with a stone. Merely because the Doctor is said to have stated that history given to him was an assault by a stone, the said hear-say statement of the evidence by itself cannot be considered as a proof of the weapon used, when in fact, the injured witness as well the panchas to the seizure panchanama have specifically and categorically stated as to which weapon that was used in the commission of the crime and also as to which weapon that was seized in the seizure panchanama. 29. Added to the above, the very same Doctor PW-8 in his very same evidence has further stated that on 31-07-2012, he received a requisition from the Investigating Officer in this case to give his opinion as to whether the injuries found on the injured would be possible to be caused with the weapons like machete and club at MO-1 and MO-2. The Doctor has stated that he examined those two weapons produced before him and after verifying the weapons, he has opined in affirmative stating that those weapons can cause the injuries found on the injured. The said report he has identified and got marked at Ex.P-8 and so also the weapons he has identified at MO-1 and MO-2. Therefore, the evidence of the Doctor is also not that it is only the stone and stone alone which can cause such injuries, but it is the categorical evidence that though the history given by the patients was of using a stone, but the weapon at MO-1 and MO-2 examined by him could cause the injuries found on the injured. Thus, the relationship of injuries with the weapons at MO-1 and MO-2 stands established. 30. Thus, the relationship of injuries with the weapons at MO-1 and MO-2 stands established. 30. In this way, the commission of the alleged act of the offence of assault on PW-1 - Pushpa and PW-3 - Saraswathi by the accused using MO-1 and MO-2 is proved by the evidence led by the prosecution. 31. The accused through out has taken a defence that in the altercation between accused, PW-1 and PW-3, while PW-1 and PW-3 attempted to pull the shirt worn by the accused, they themselves fell down and sustained injuries. No doubt, suggestion to that effect was made in the cross-examination of PW-1, PW-3 and PW-5, however, none of those witnesses have admitted the said suggestion. A mere making of a suggestion from the accused side is not sufficient to takeaway the cogent evidence led by the prosecution regarding the occurrence of the injuries upon the injured. In such a situation and circumstance, the accused, apart from making a mere suggestion should also have placed some more materials either to suspect the case of the prosecution or to make out a possibility of defence case in the process. However, the accused except making a mere suggestion to these witnesses has not placed any material to show that his defence cannot be easily ignored. On the other hand, as observed above, the evidence of prosecution witnesses, more particularly of PW-1 and PW-3, PW-2, PW-4 and PW-5 clearly goes to prove that it was accused and accused alone who has assaulted PW-1 and PW-3 with MO-1 and MO-2 causing them simple injuries. 32. Appreciating the evidence led by the prosecution on the said point, the Trial Court has rightly held the accused guilty of the offence punishable under Section 324 of IPC. 33. With respect to order on sentence, for the proven guilt of the accused, the Trial Court has imposed a fine of Rs.10,000/- on the accused and also simple imprisonment for a period of six months for the offence punishable under Section 324 of IPC. 34. Though learned counsel for the appellant while concluding his argument submitted to give the benefit under the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, to the accused, considering the facts and circumstances of the case on hand, the accused is not entitled for the benefit under the said Act. 34. Though learned counsel for the appellant while concluding his argument submitted to give the benefit under the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, to the accused, considering the facts and circumstances of the case on hand, the accused is not entitled for the benefit under the said Act. However, it is the sentencing policy that the sentence ordered must be proportionate to the gravity of the proven guilt of the accused. It must not be either exorbitant or for name sake. 35. In the instant case, considering the gravity of the guilt, nature of injuries sustained by PW-1 and PW-3 and the weapons used, I am of the view that the sentence imposed by the Trial Court appears to be slightly on a higher side and the same deserves to be modified to bring it down to the proportionate sentence for the proven guilt. Thus, it is only for the limited purpose of reducing the sentence the appeal deserves to be allowed in part. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:- ORDER [i] The appeal filed by accused/appellant is allowed in part; [ii] The judgment of conviction passed by the learned I Additional Sessions Judge at Mysore in Sessions Case No.132/2013 dated 02-04-2014, convicting the present appellant/accused for the offence punishable under Sections 324 of IPC is confirmed; [iii] However, the order on sentence of imprisonment dated 07-04-2014 for the offence punishable under Section 324 of IPC is modified to the extent that the fine of Rs.10,000/- each imposed is reduced and confined to Rs.8,000/- each and the sentence of imprisonment for six months simple imprisonment imposed on the accused is reduced and confined to four months simple imprisonment; [iv] Rest of the order on sentence passed by the Trial Court remains unaltered; [v] The bail bonds, if any, executed by the accused stand cancelled. Registry to transmit a copy of this judgment along with Trial Court records to the Trial Court immediately. The accused/appellant is entitled for a free copy of this judgment.