JUDGMENT The appellant was convicted by the learned Prl.District & Sessions Judge, Chikkaballapura, (hereinafter for brevity referred to as “trial Court”) in Spl.C.C.No.22/2010, by the judgment of conviction and order on sentence dated 18.12.2013, for the offence punishable under Section 324 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter for brevity referred to as `IPC’) and sentenced him accordingly. 2. The summary of the case of the prosecution is that, on 3.4.2010, near Lakshmidevana Kote Bus Stand, within the limits of complainant-Police Station, when PW1 Manjunatha demanded for return of his jeans jacket from accused No.1, he abused the complainant in filthy language and also insulted him by taking the name of the caste and on the same day night at about 8.30, the accused No.1 armed with deadly weapon i.e., chopper, went to the house of PW1 and making criminal trespass into his house with an intention to commit criminal offence, dragged PW1 out of his house and assaulted him with the chopper he was possessing voluntarily causing grievous hurt. At that time, accused Nos.2 and 3 also abused PW1 in filthy language taking the name of his caste and when CW2 (PW2) tried to rescue his brother (PW1), he was also assaulted by the accused and thereby have committed the offences punishable under Sections 504, 448, 324 read with Section 34 of IPC and under Section 3 (1)(x) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter for brevity referred to as `SC/ST Act’). 3. Charges were framed against the accused for the alleged offences. Since the accused pleaded not guilty, in order to prove the alleged guilt against the accused, the prosecution examined fifteen witnesses from PWs.1 to PW15 and got marked documents from Exs.P1 to P16 and material objects from MO1 to MO3 were marked. From the accused side, neither any witness was examined nor any documents were marked as exhibits. 4. After hearing the arguments from both side, the trial Court by its impugned judgment of conviction and order on sentence dated 18.12.2013, acquitted all the three accused for the offence punishable under Sections 504, 448 read with Section 34 of IPC and under Section 3(1)(x) of SC/ST Act. It also acquitted accused Nos.2 and 3 from the offence punishable under Section 324 read with Section 34 of IPC. It also acquitted accused Nos.2 and 3 from the offence punishable under Section 324 read with Section 34 of IPC. However, it convicted accused No.1 for the offence punishable under Section 324 of IPC and sentenced him accordingly. It is against the said judgment of conviction and order on sentence, the accused No.1 has preferred this appeal. 5. The respondent – State is being represented by learned High Court Government Pleader. 6. The records from the trial Court were called for and the same are placed before this Court. 7. Heard the arguments from both side and perused the materials placed before this Court, including the memorandum of appeal and the records from the trial Court. 8. For the sake of convenience, the parties would be referred to as per their ranks before the Special Court. 9. In view of the above, the points that arise for my consideration are : 1) Whether the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that on 3.4.2010, at about 8.30 p.m., near his house within the jurisdiction of respondent-Police Station, the accused No.1 assaulted PW1 – Manjunatha with a chopper causing bleeding injuries and voluntarily caused hurt, thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 324 of IPC? 2) Whether the judgment of conviction and order on sentence under appeal deserves any interference at the hands of this Court? 10. Among the fifteen witnesses examined by the prosecution, PW1 (CW1) Manjunatha is the complainant and injured in this case. The said witness in his evidence has stated that about three to four months earlier to the incident, he had given his jeans jacket to one Sri Anand (PW3). In turn, said Anand had given the said jacket to accused No.1 requesting him to deliver it to PW1. About three to four months thereafter, said Anand met him (PW1) in the town of Chintamani. At his enquiry, he told that he had delivered the said jacket to accused No.1 Prasad Reddy long back. However, the witness told him that since the said Prasad Reddy has not delivered the said jacket to him, it was PW3 – Anand who should get the jacket back and give it to the witness. Accordingly, PW3 Anand accompanied the witness to the place of accused on the next day. In the Bus Stand, said Anand met accused No.1 Prasad Reddy and they were talking. Accordingly, PW3 Anand accompanied the witness to the place of accused on the next day. In the Bus Stand, said Anand met accused No.1 Prasad Reddy and they were talking. In the meantime, PW1 went to his house to change his dress. Subsequently, Anand told the witness that since Prasad Reddy questioned the very delivery of jeans jacket to him, the said Anand took his mobile. PW3 Anand gave that mobile to PW1 asking him not to return the same until accused No.1 delivers the jeans jacket to him. In that process, accused No.1 slapped to the cheeks of Anand and when questioned by this witness, accused No.1 abused this witness in filthy language. The witness has further stated that after sending Anand to his place, he returned to his home. At 8.00 O’Clock in the night, when he was watching a programme on the TV and while his mother and elder sister were inside the kitchen, accused No.1 trespassed into the house holding a chopper in his hand and abused in Telugu language and holding the color of his shirt, dragged him outside, then he cried. The accused also assaulted him on his head causing bleeding injury. Further, the accused dragged him to his house, to which place, his (this witness’s) mother and sister also came. Tirumalesha and Anjanappa hearing his voice, also rushed to the house of accused No.1, at that time, his brother Rakesh was near cattle shed, which was at a distance of about 10 to 15 ft. from the house of the accused. The witness has further stated that near the house of accused No.1, his parents abused him (this witness) in Telugu language in abusive words. Accused No.2 XXX X XX in his hand, assaulted on the nose and lip, at which, his lipguard was cut. When he attempted to give one more blow, since he (this witness) raised his hand, the blow lodged on his fingers causing injury. At that time, his (of this witness) sister, mother and brother being scared by seeing the chopper, did not came near. The witness also stated that accused No.1 also assaulted his brother with the chopper on his face causing bleeding injury. Since the people of the village gathered there, accused went inside their house. Thereafter, his (of this witness) father came and shifted the injured sons to Government Hospital, Chintamani and got them the treatment. The witness also stated that accused No.1 also assaulted his brother with the chopper on his face causing bleeding injury. Since the people of the village gathered there, accused went inside their house. Thereafter, his (of this witness) father came and shifted the injured sons to Government Hospital, Chintamani and got them the treatment. Stating that in that connection he has given a complaint to the police as per Ex.P1 when they visited the hospital, the witness has identified the said complaint at Ex.P1. He also stated that he was inpatient in the hospital for fifteen days where the doctors have sutured the wounds sustained by him. The witness also stated that he belongs to Scheduled Tribe and he has identified the weapons at MO1 and MO2 stating that MO1 was in the hand of accused No.2 and MO2 was in the hand of accused No.1. He also identified the jeans jacket at MO3 stating that it belongs to him. He was subjected to a detailed cross-examination wherein several portions of his statements made in examination-in-chief were suggested to the witness suggesting that they were improvements made by him in his evidence which did not find place in his complaint. 11. PW2 – Rakesh M.L., in his evidence has stated that at the time of the incident, he was near cattle shed. He came to know about the accused dragging his brother Manjunatha near their house only when Manjunatha yelled. He ran to the spot and attempted to rescue his brother Manjunatha. At that time, accused No.2 assaulted him with a sickle (XXXX XXXX). He further stated that accused No.3 was abusing them in Telugu language. Though neighbours had gathered there, among them, Tirumalesha and Anjappa were asking the accused not to assault. However, since the accused were holding weapons, they did not came near to them. The witness has further stated that in the night at about 8.45 p.m., his father came from Chintamani and shifted him and his brother Manjunatha in an autorickshaw to Government Hospital, Chintamani., where his brother Manjunatha was inpatient for fifteen days. He stated that with respect to delivering a jeans jacket, accused No.1 had assaulted his brother Manjunatha. The witness also identified MO1 and MO2. He stated that with respect to delivering a jeans jacket, accused No.1 had assaulted his brother Manjunatha. The witness also identified MO1 and MO2. Even in his cross-examination also from the accused side, attempts were made to show that many portions of his evidence in examinationinchief were improvements made by him which were not find in any place in his alleged statement before the Investigating Officer. 12. PW3 – Anand Kumar has stated that the jeans jacket of PW1 which was given to him was returned to accused No.1 with a request to deliver it to the complainant. However, it was only when complainant asked him about nonreturning of the jacket, he came to know that accused No.1 had not returned it to the complainant. As such, in order to enquire the accused No.1 in that regard, both himself and complainant had come to the Bus Stop. However, accused No.1 questioning that when the said jacket was given to him, abused them. At that, he (this witness) snatched the cell phone from the hands of accused No.1 and handed it over to the complainant stating that till the jacket is returned, the said phone need not be returned. However, the complainant pacified the dispute and returned the cell phone to accused No.1. Next day, when he came to Chintamani, he came to know about the incident of accused No.1 assaulting the complainant. The denial suggestions made to him in his cross-examination were not admitted as true by this witness. 13. PW4 Rathnamma – the mother of the complainant has stated that at the time of incident, at about 8.00 or 8.30 p.m., she was in the kitchen and complainant was watching TV in the Hall. Her daughter was also with her in the kitchen. Hearing the loud noise of his son, they came out and saw that accused No.1 had assaulted her son and blood had fallen on the ground. Her son had sustained bleeding injury on his head and face. When she cried for help, accused No.1 dragged her son outside and took him towards his house. These people also followed them. At the same time, her second son came near the house of accused No.1 and attempted to rescue his brother. Tirumalesh and Anjappa also came forward to rescue the complainant. Accused No.2 assaulted her son Rakesh causing bleeding injury. These people also followed them. At the same time, her second son came near the house of accused No.1 and attempted to rescue his brother. Tirumalesh and Anjappa also came forward to rescue the complainant. Accused No.2 assaulted her son Rakesh causing bleeding injury. She brought both the injured children to her house. After returning of her husband, she informed him about the incident, who took both his sons in an autorickshaw to Government Hospital, Chintamani, and got them the medical treatment. Next day of the incident, the police came to the spot and drew a scene of offence panchanama as per Ex.P2, wherein she has also put her signature. She also stated that accused Nos.1 and 2 also abused her sons in abusive words in Telugu language. 14. PW5 – Sumangala, the elder sister of PW1 and PW2, has stated that at the time of incident, she was in the kitchen with her mother and PW1 was watching TV programme. Accused No.1 trespassing into their house, dragged her brother PW1 outside. When the accused had assaulted her brother, at his yelling, both herself and her mother came out and witnessed the situation. The witness has further stated that when her brother was dragged towards his house by accused No.1, these people were trying to prevent them, so also, Tirumalesha and Anjappa. Her another brother Rakesh also went there, to whom, accused No.2 – the father of accused No.1, assaulted him with a sickle (XX XXX XXX) on his head and hands. Her father who came later on shifted the injured to hospital. The witness also stated that the incident has taken place with respect to jeans jacket. The witness has identified MO1 to MO3. In her cross-examination, she has given some more details about the incident and adhered to her original version. 15. PW6 – Anjappa who according to the prosecution is an eye witness to the incident. Though stated that he went to the spot of the incident at the end, as such, he has seen the incident only to a small extent, but, he has not spoken about the act of alleged assault upon the complainant by the accused. He has stated that he heard people talking that accused No.2 assaulted the complainant and complainant had sustained bleeding injury on his head. He categorically stated that he has not seen the accused assaulting the complainant. He has stated that he heard people talking that accused No.2 assaulted the complainant and complainant had sustained bleeding injury on his head. He categorically stated that he has not seen the accused assaulting the complainant. Treating him as hostile, the prosecution was permitted to cross-examine him. However, in his cross-examination, the prosecution could not get any support from him. The evidence of PW7 – Tirumalesha is no different than that of PW6. Even this witness though stated that he has seen the incident, but, further stated that by the time he went to the spot, the complainant Manjunatha had already sustained bleeding injuries on his head. As such, he has not seen as to who assaulted Manjunatha. However, he stated that Rakesh had sustained injury on his face and accused No.2 assaulted Rakesh with an axe (XXX XXX). Once again he has stated that he has not seen as to who assaulted whom. This witness was also treated as hostile and prosecution was permitted to cross-examine him. However, the prosecution could not get any support from this witness any further. 16. PW8 Munayaiah N., the father of the complainant and PW2, has stated that, on the date of the incident, he returned home at about 8.00 or 8.30 p.m. and saw his sons i.e., PWs.1 and 2 sustaining bleeding injuries. He came to know that they were assaulted with the chopper by accused Nos.1 and 2. He shifted both of them to Government Hospital at Chintamani. He also came to know that with respect to a jeans jacket belonging to his son, which was taken by accused No.1, the entire incident has taken place. The denial suggestions made to him in his cross-examination from the accused side were not admitted as true by him. 17. PW9 – Ramaswamy, PW10 Anjappa and PW11 Lakshminarasimhamurthy, though were examined showing them as pancha witnesses for scene of offence panchanama at Ex.P2, it is only PW9 who supported the case of the prosecution. However, PW10 except stating that police had taken his thumb mark to a document, has not supported the case of the prosecution. Similarly, PW11 also has not supported the case of the prosecution. He stated that for a prepared document, without disclosing the nature of the document, the police had obtained his signature to the same. 18. However, PW10 except stating that police had taken his thumb mark to a document, has not supported the case of the prosecution. Similarly, PW11 also has not supported the case of the prosecution. He stated that for a prepared document, without disclosing the nature of the document, the police had obtained his signature to the same. 18. PW12 – Muniraju, according to the prosecution, was a pancha for recovery panchanama at Ex.P8 whereunder MOs.1 to 3 were recovered at the instance of accused No.2 from his house on 22.4.2010. However, this witness except stating that the police stating that a proof is required for their attendance, have obtained his signature, has not supported the case of the prosecution in the matter. 19. PW13 – K.G.Satish, the then Police Sub-Inspector of respondent-Police Station has stated about he recording the statement of complainant-Manjunatha on 4.4.2010 at 8.00 a.m. in Government Hospital at Chintamani, as per Ex.P1 and preparing FIR as per Ex.P9. 20. PW14 Dr.Suresh, the Medical Officer at Government Hospital, Chintamani, has stated that he medically examined PW1 Manjunatha and PW2 Rakesha on 3.4.2010. The witness has stated that the injured told him that they were assaulted by one Prasad Reddy and other two persons with the weapon called `long’ in a place called Lakshmidevana Kote. The doctor has given the description of the injuries said to have been suffered by both the witnesses. He has stated that injured Manjunatha had sustained the following injuries : 1) Lacerations over scalp 1 x 6 cms. 2 Nos. bleeding. 2) Lacerations over back of scalp 1 x 5 cms. bleeding. 3) Lacerations over upper lip 1 x 1 cms. bleeding. 4) Lacerations over Tip of nose ½ x ½ cms. bleeding. According to the witness, all those injuries were simple in nature. He further stated that, another injured L.M.Rakesh had sustained the following injuries : 1) Laceration over chin 1 x 4 cms. bleeding. 2) Abrasions over right molar region 3 x 3 cms. reddish. He opined that both the injuries were simple in nature. He has also stated that, in that connection, he has issued two wound certificates, which he has marked at Ex.P9 and P10 respectively. Even in his cross-examination, he adhered to his original version. bleeding. 2) Abrasions over right molar region 3 x 3 cms. reddish. He opined that both the injuries were simple in nature. He has also stated that, in that connection, he has issued two wound certificates, which he has marked at Ex.P9 and P10 respectively. Even in his cross-examination, he adhered to his original version. The suggestions made to him that the injuries found on the injured can be possible to be caused with a person falling on a rough surface ground or from the tree, were not admitted as true by the witness. 21. PW15 – V.Govindaiah, the then Deputy Superintendent of Police, under whom the respondent Police Station was coming, has stated about he conducting the investigation in this matter and filing the charge sheet. 22. In the light of the above, it was the argument of learned counsel for the appellant that the evidence of the parties, more particularly, the injured witnesses and other material witnesses are contradictory with great variations in them. He submitted that the timings mentioned by the witnesses do not tally from one witness to another witness. The date and time of the complainant giving statement before the police also does not tally. Regarding description of the weapon also, there is variation in the statement given before the doctor and the weapon seized by police at MO2. With this, he submitted that in view of the said variations, the case of the prosecution is doubtful. However, the trial Court has not appreciated the evidence properly which has resulted in an erroneous conviction of the appellant for the alleged offence. 23. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader submitted that the incident is proved by the evidence of injured witnesses, which is corroborated by the evidence of PWs.3, 4 and 5. The recovery of the weapon is also corroborated by the prosecution. The medical evidence since supports the case of the prosecution, the trial Court has rightly held that the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. 24. The evidence of PW1 Manjunatha who is none else than the injured in the alleged incident, about how the incident occurred and also about the act of the appellant in the alleged assaulting of the victim is further corroborated by the evidence of PWs.2, 4 and 5. 24. The evidence of PW1 Manjunatha who is none else than the injured in the alleged incident, about how the incident occurred and also about the act of the appellant in the alleged assaulting of the victim is further corroborated by the evidence of PWs.2, 4 and 5. Though all of them are family members, still, when the incident commenced inside the house of the victim, where, the accused is said to have trespassed and dragged the victim outside the out and assaulted him, naturally the inmates in the house, who are the mother and sister of the victim, would be the first expected eye witnesses to the incident. Both of them have uniformly stated that, since PW1 – the victim was in the house watching the TV the accused have entered their house and by the voice raised by PW1 Manjunatha, they came out and saw the accused. Thus, the evidence of none else than the injured is further corroborated by the evidence of PWs.4 and 5. The evidence of PW2 – Rakesh also corroborates the evidence of PW1 – the injured witness. Rakesh also has stated that he too saw that his brother was being dragged by accused No.1/appellant to his house after he was assaulted by the accused. In this way, all the material witnesses have clearly supported the case of the prosecution and shown that the accused No.1 has assaulted PW1. Further, the weapon used by the accused was also identified by injured witness and his family members. 25. PW6 and PW7 though were treated as hostile, however, they too have stated that the incident on the said day had taken place. PW6 has stated that, since he went to the place at the end of the incident, he has seen only a portion of it. PW7 has stated that he has seen the incident and he was also one among the people who rescued the injured from the assault. About the presence of PW6 and PW7, the important material witnesses i.e., PWs.1, 2, 4 and 5 also have stated in their evidence. Thus, the evidence of these witnesses about the incident and the role of the present appellant/accused No.1 in the said act has been corroborated and clearly go to show that it was the present appellant and appellant alone who has assaulted PW1 Manjunatha with the chopper at MO1. 26. Thus, the evidence of these witnesses about the incident and the role of the present appellant/accused No.1 in the said act has been corroborated and clearly go to show that it was the present appellant and appellant alone who has assaulted PW1 Manjunatha with the chopper at MO1. 26. Learned counsel for the appellant in his argument referring to the timings stated by these material witnesses as the alleged time of incident, argued that the variation of about half an hour in their statement as the time of occurrence of incident creates a doubt in them. No doubt, a reading of evidence of these material witnesses, including the injured witness, may go to show that there is variation of about half an hour in stating the time as the time of the incident, however, PW1 has stated that it was about 8.00 O’Clock when the incident has happened, PW4 – his mother has stated that it was about 8.00 or 8.30 p.m., PW5 – the sister of the victim has stated that it was about 8.30 p.m., and PW2 has stated that when he saw his brother being dragged by accused towards his house, the time was said to be 8.30 p.m. Thus, the said timing stated by these witnesses as the time of incident, at the maximum, spreads in a period of thirty minutes. In such a situation, one cannot be expected to have watch with them, rather than reacting and responding to the situation. They are not expected to record the timings and maintain a log in that regard. The witnesses have stated that, it is between 8.00 and 8.30 p.m. The said timings cannot be considered as the timings which are at variance between the witnesses. As such, the argument of learned counsel for the appellant that there are variations in the timings as stated by the witnesses, as such, the case of the prosecution is doubtful, is not acceptable. 27. Learned counsel for the appellant also stated that regarding lodging of the complaint, there is variation, as such, the prosecution case is not believable. PW1 in his evidence has stated that, after the incident, his father took him to Government Hospital at Chintamani and that he has given his complaint before the police when they visited the said hospital. He has identified the said complaint at Ex.P1. PW1 in his evidence has stated that, after the incident, his father took him to Government Hospital at Chintamani and that he has given his complaint before the police when they visited the said hospital. He has identified the said complaint at Ex.P1. Considering this statement of the injured, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that, according to this injured, his complaint statement was given by him on the very same night of the incident, whereas, according to PW13, the then Police Sub-Inspector, who recorded the said complaint statement, the recording of the said complaint statement was at 8.00 O’Clock in the morning on 4.4.2010. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, there was great variation in the timings of recording the complaint. 28. A careful reading of evidence of PW1 go to show that he has stated that he has given the statement to the police in the Government Hospital, but, he has not specifically stated that he has given statement to the police on the same night. The context under which he has stated that as to when he has given the statement and when the police have come to the hospital has come at different places in his evidence and under different context. As such, it cannot be inferred that he has specifically stated that he gave the complaint to the police on the same night in the hospital. On the other hand, even the treating doctor PW14 has also stated that the police came to the hospital on the next day morning and in his presence, they recorded the statement of the injured in the form of a complaint, in which direction, he too has put his signature in the complaint, which he has identified at Ex.P1(c). Therefore, it is clear that, even though the injured has been shifted to hospital on the same night of the date of the incident, but, the police have recorded his statement in the hospital only on the next day morning, which according to PW13, was at 8.00 a.m. Therefore, the argument of learned counsel for the appellant that there is discrepancy in the alleged recording of the statement of the complainant by the police about its timings is also not acceptable. 29. 29. Lastly, the learned counsel for the appellant also canvassed a point that before the doctor, the description of the weapon used in the commission of the crime is mentioned as `long’, whereas, the seized weapons are chopper and sickle (xxx xxx),as such, there is discrepancy in the description of the weapon, which creates a doubt in the case of the prosecution. No doubt, the wound certificates of both PW1 and PW2 issued by PW14, the doctor which are at Exs.P9 and P10 respectively, shows that history as recorded in the said certificates are as the assault by Prasad Reddy and two others with long. Accordingly, PW14 the doctor even in his evidence has stated that history as told to him by the injured was an assault using the weapon called `long’. However, the complaint at Ex.P1 given by none else than the very same injured/PW1 go to show that the injured has stated in his complaint that the injured was assaulted by the accused using a chopper. Incidentally, the said complaint was recorded by PW13 – the Police Sub-Inspector on 4.4.2010 in the Government Hospital in the presence of the doctor attending the injured. Thus, when the complainant himself in the presence of treating doctor has got recorded the statement in the form of a complaint as per Ex.P1 describing the weapon used for his assault as a chopper and also has subsequently identified the said weapon at MO1, the alleged history about the injury said to have been given before the doctor at the time of treatment which in fact also has not been confronted to PW1/the complainant from the accused side, would not take away the evidentiary value of the material witnesses of the prosecution, including the evidence of eye witnesses and the injured. As such, the last leg of argument of learned counsel for the appellant that there is discrepancy in the description of the weapon and the same creates a doubt in the case of the prosecution is also not acceptable. 30. The motive behind the act of the accused is stated in detail by PWs1, 2, 5, 7 and 8. The commonness in the evidence of all these witnesses is that, in connection with the returning of a jeans jacket of PW1 by the accused No.1, the present incident has taken place. 30. The motive behind the act of the accused is stated in detail by PWs1, 2, 5, 7 and 8. The commonness in the evidence of all these witnesses is that, in connection with the returning of a jeans jacket of PW1 by the accused No.1, the present incident has taken place. The same is further corroborated by the evidence of PW3 – Anand, wherein, as observed above, the witness has clearly stated that the jeans jacket belonging to PW1 which was in his possession was to be returned to him, as such, he had given the same to accused No.1 with a request to give it to PW1. However, since accused No.1 failed to deliver the same to PW1, both PW1 and PW3 met accused No.1 and asked him about the jeans jacket. It is in that connection, since PW1 was insisting for return of the jeans jacket which accused No.1 was not willing to deliver, the present incident has taken place, where accused No.1 assaulted PW1 with the chopper. The prosecution has also seized the said jeans jacket which is at MO3 and identified by the witness, including PW1. Thus, the motive behind the commission of crime has also been established by the prosecution. 31. The defence of the accused was multifold. The first defence of the accused was that a quarrel had taken place in connection with the mother of the complainant alleged to have grazed the cattles in the land belonging to the aunt of the accused and in the said quarrel, the accused is said to have supported his aunt. It is for the said reason, a false complaint had been lodged against the accused. The said suggestion made to PW1 in his cross-examination was not admitted as true by the witness. The second defence of the accused was that the complainant while plucking the leaves from a tree, fell down on a stone and sustained injuries. A suggestion to that effect was made in the cross-examination of PW14 which was also admitted as true by the said witness. However, no specific defence was taken by the accused with respect to the injuries sustained by PW2. The third defence of the accused was that the complainant and his brother (PW1 and PW2) are in the habit of threatening the people and lodging false complaints accusing them of atrocities based upon their caste. However, no specific defence was taken by the accused with respect to the injuries sustained by PW2. The third defence of the accused was that the complainant and his brother (PW1 and PW2) are in the habit of threatening the people and lodging false complaints accusing them of atrocities based upon their caste. A suggestion made to that effect in the cross-examination of PW1 was not admitted as true by the witness. The fourth defence taken up by the accused was that PW4 – the mother of the complainant had grazed cattles in the land belonging to the aunt of the appellant, for which action, a quarrel had taken place between them. The suggestions made to PW4 in her cross-examination to that effect was not admitted by the said witness as true. 32. Thus, the defence taken by the accused since were confined only to the suggestions made to the prosecution witnesses and since those suggestions were not admitted by any of the prosecution witnesses to whom they were made also falls short of any proof, as such, merely by taking such a decision, it cannot be inferred that prosecution case is doubtful. 33. Thus, the above analysis of the evidence of the prosecution witnesses would clearly go to show that all the material witnesses, including the injured witnesses i.e., PWs.1 and 2 and the eye witnesses, have clearly and categorically supported the case of the prosecution and the medical evidence also supports the case of the prosecution. The weapon seized further corroborates the evidence of prosecution witnesses that the present appellant/accused on 3.4.2010, at about 8.30 p.m., had voluntarily caused hurt by assaulting PWs.1 and 2 and thereby has committed an offence punishable under Section 324 of IPC. The trial Court by properly appreciating the evidence placed before it, has rightly convicted the appellant/accused No.1 for the alleged offence. Further, the sentence ordered against the accused ordering him to undergo six months rigorous imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs.2,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 324 of IPC and in default of payment of fine, to undergo one month rigorous imprisonment, also being a sentence which is proportionate to the gravity of the proven guilt, I do not find any reason to interfere in the judgment of conviction and order on sentence passed by the trial Court. 34. 34. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following order: ORDER The Appeal is dismissed. The judgment of conviction and order on sentence dated 18.12.2013, passed by the learned Prl.District & Sessions Judge, Chikkaballapura, in Spl.C.C.No.22/2010, is confirmed. The bail bonds executed by the appellant/accused No.1 shall stands cancelled. The Registry is directed to transmit a copy of this judgment along with trial Court records to the trial Court immediately.