ORDER : This criminal revision petition is filed by the accused seeking to set aside his conviction and sentence passed in CC No.897/2000 dated 24.02.2010 on the file of the I Addl. Civil Judge (Jr. Dn.) & JMFC, Bhadravathi and judgment and order dated 18.09.2011 passed by the Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court at Bhadravathi in Crl.A.No.18/2010, whereby he was convicted and sentenced for the offences punishable under Sections 504, 324, 326 and 506 of IPC. 2. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the accused – petitioner and the learned HCGP for the respondent-State. 3. It is the case of the prosecution that on 24.01.2000 at about 3.00 p.m., at Arabilachi, Vaddarahatti village, Bhadravathi Taluk, in the background of a marital dispute between the accused and the complainant, when the complainant (PW1) refused to withdraw the petition filed by her for maintenance, the accused abused her in filthy language and intentionally insulted her so as to provoke breach of peace and assaulted her with stone and knife and caused simple as well as grievous injuries on her forehead, chin and neck and also criminally intimidated her of dire consequences and thereby committed offences punishable under Sections 504, 324, 326 and 506 of IPC. 4. Before the trial court, the prosecution got examined PWs.1 to 11 and got marked Exs.P1 to P10 and got marked M.Os.1 and 2. The learned Magistrate after considering the evidence and material on record convicted the accused for the aforesaid charged offences. 5. Aggrieved by the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the trial court, the accused preferred an appeal before the Sessions Court and the said appeal also came to be dismissed. Hence, this revision petition. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the courts below without properly appreciating the entire facts and circumstances of the case, has erroneously convicted the accused relying on the evidence of the interested testimony of prosecution witnesses. He submits that the evidence on record suffers from legal infirmity and not corroborated to each other. He submits that PWs.5 to 7 and 9 have not supported the case of prosecution and therefore, the evidence of PWs.1, 2 and 4 are not corroborated by any independent witnesses. He contends that the prosecution has failed to establish the grievous injuries suffered by the victim – PW1 by examining the doctor. He submits that PWs.5 to 7 and 9 have not supported the case of prosecution and therefore, the evidence of PWs.1, 2 and 4 are not corroborated by any independent witnesses. He contends that the prosecution has failed to establish the grievous injuries suffered by the victim – PW1 by examining the doctor. The prosecution has also not produced and marked the x-ray to establish that PW1 suffered fracture as mentioned in the wound certificate. Accordingly, he seeks to allow the revision petition. 7. The learned counsel has placed reliance on the following decisions in support of his case: (i) Naib Singh vs. State of Punjab reported in AIR 1986 SC 2192 . (ii) Crl.RP No.789/2011 in the case of Chidananda and Anr. Vs. The State of Karnataka disposed on 11.02.2020 passed by the High Court of Karnataka. (iii) Crl.A.No.3721/2010 connected with Crl.A.No.3611/2013 in the case of Chanabasappa and others vs. The State of Karnataka, disposed on 10.09.2015 passed by the High Court of Karnataka. 8. Per contra, the learned HCGP has contended that both the courts have concurrently held that the prosecution has established its case beyond all reasonable doubt. He contends that PW1 is the victim and she is the wife of the accused. She has categorically narrated about the incident and her evidence is further supported by the evidence of PW2, who is an eye witness to the incident. He submits that Ex.P10 is the wound certificate which clearly discloses that PW1 has suffered grievous injuries and therefore non examination of doctor is not a ground to discard the evidence of PW1. Accordingly, he seeks to dismiss the revision petition. 9. PW1 the victim in her evidence has stated that for the last ten years she was residing separately due to ill-treatment given by the accused. The accused has married second wife without her consent about 10-12 years back. He has not taken divorce from her. She has stated that for the last 8-10 years as per the Court order, she is receiving maintenance and she was attending the court every month. In the year 2000, when she was returning home from the Court, the accused took her to her village telling that he will not be able to pay the maintenance, but he will look after her properly. In the year 2000, when she was returning home from the Court, the accused took her to her village telling that he will not be able to pay the maintenance, but he will look after her properly. When they were thus proceeding, suddenly, the accused started abusing her and then he assaulted on her forehead and chin with the stone and also stabbed with knife on her forehead, chin and neck. She has stated that the said incident was witnessed by one Nagaraj. 10. The prosecution has got examined Nagaraj as PW2. He has supported the version of the victim. He has stated that at the time of incident, he was plucking coconuts in his land. He has identified M.O.1stone and M.O.2 knife. PW3 has stated that on hearing the cry she went to the spot and noticed PW1 had sustained injuries on her forehead and neck. She has stated that by the time she reached, the accused ran away from the spot. She has also identified M.Os.1 and 2. There is nothing elicited in the cross-examination of these witnesses to discard the incident of assault by the accused. 11. According to the prosecution, the injured PW1 was shifted to McGann Hospital, Shivamogga and on receiving the MLC intimation, the police went to the hospital and recorded her statement, on the basis of which a case was registered against the accused by PW11. At the time of spot mahazar, stone (M.O.1) was seized. After the arrest of the accused, the knife (M.O.2) was seized at his instance. 12. The prosecution has placed reliance on the wound certificate marked as Ex.P10 to show that the victim suffered simple as well as grievous injuries. It is mentioned in the wound certificate that injuries No.1 and 2 are simple in nature and injuries No.3, 4 and 5 are grievous in nature. The injuries mentioned in the wound certificate are as under: (i) Injury to the u/l lips and forehead. (ii) Injury to the left orbital area and sub-conjunctival bleading. (iii) Mobility --f 21/12 --------------- 21/12 (iv) #Mandible syphilis area (v) Showing the evidence of sub-luxation. 12. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that prosecution has failed to establish that the injured suffered grievous injuries. He contends that the x-ray report noted in the wound certificate has not been produced. (iii) Mobility --f 21/12 --------------- 21/12 (iv) #Mandible syphilis area (v) Showing the evidence of sub-luxation. 12. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that prosecution has failed to establish that the injured suffered grievous injuries. He contends that the x-ray report noted in the wound certificate has not been produced. The doctor who issued the wound certificate is also not examined. He submits that in a similar circumstance, this court has held that unless the x-ray report is produced for confirmation of the fracture opined by the doctor on clinical examination, it cannot be said that the accused had caused grievous injuries. 13. Paras 30 and 31 of the judgment passed in Crl.A.No.3721/2010 c/w. Crl.A.No.3720/2013 in the case of Chanabasappa and others vs. State are extracted hereunder; “Para 30 What is the effect of non-production of the x-ray report has been dealt by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of State of Karnataka vs. Sheenappa Gowda [(2011) 4 KCCR 759]. As per the facts of the said case, PW4 had sustained a grievous injury; x-ray had been taken to confirm that he had sustained a fracture. It is held that ‘one cannot say that the injury would be grievous injury in the absence of x-ray report.’ In the present case, the opinion of PW8 can only be said to be given on clinical examination. It is well settled that in criminal cases, the burden of proof is always on the prosecution and that burden would not shift unless there is a presumption or defence is taken as enumerated in the Indian Penal Code. In the present case, the defence of the accused is one of total denial of the allegations leveled. Para – 31 : It is clear from the evidence of PW8 –n Dr. Yashwant Gouda that he has described the injury noticed by him as grievous injury. When the prosecution has alleged that the injured had sustained fracture of left elbow and the same is supported by x-ray report, non-production of x-ray report would not help the prosecution to contend that it was grievous in nature. The evidence of PW8 would only show that injured had suffered injuries as described in Ex.P3. When the prosecution has alleged that the injured had sustained fracture of left elbow and the same is supported by x-ray report, non-production of x-ray report would not help the prosecution to contend that it was grievous in nature. The evidence of PW8 would only show that injured had suffered injuries as described in Ex.P3. Unless the x-ray report is produced for confirmation of the fracture opined by the doctor on clinical examination, it cannot be said that the accused had caused grievous injury, that is fracture”. Similar view was taken by this court in Chidananda and another vs. State (supra). 14. In the present case, except producing the wound certificate – Ex.P10, the prosecution has not examined the doctor. X-ray is also not produced to show that the victim suffered fracture of mandible. The other grievous injuries mentioned in the wound certificate is also not proved by examining the doctor. The defence had no occasion to disprove the same. The prosecution has failed to prove the initial burden by adducing cogent evidence that the injured suffered grievous injuries. In that view of the matter, it cannot be held that the prosecution has established its case beyond all reasonable doubt that the accused caused grievous injuries to PW1. 15. From the evidence of PWs.1 and 2 and also on perusal of Ex.P10 wound certificate, I am of the considered opinion that the prosecution has established that the accused caused injuries to PW1 with stone and knife and also held threat which should attract offence under Section 324 as well as Sections 504 and 506 of IPC. 16. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the incident is of the year 2000. The incident has taken place in a heat of moment. Except the present incident, no such incident has taken place between the accused and PW1. There is no bad antecedent against the petitioner. Therefore, he submits that sending the accused to jail at this stage may not serve any purpose. Placing reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court is Naib Singh (supra) he submits that in a similar circumstance, taking into consideration that the incident took place 13 years back, a lenient view was taken. Accordingly, he seeks to modify the sentence. 17. Placing reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court is Naib Singh (supra) he submits that in a similar circumstance, taking into consideration that the incident took place 13 years back, a lenient view was taken. Accordingly, he seeks to modify the sentence. 17. On an over all appreciation of the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the fact that the incident has taken place about 20 years ago, I am of the considered view that it is not desirable to send the petitioner to jail at this stage. Hence, the sentence of imprisonment imposed against the petitioner for the offence punishable under Sections 324, 504 and 506 of IPC requires modification. Hence, I pass the following: ORDER The criminal revision petition is partly allowed. The judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed against the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 326 of IPC is hereby set aside. The conviction of the accused/petitioner under Sections 324, 504 and 506 of IPC is confirmed. The accused-petitioner is sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/and in default of payment of fine, to undergo S.I. for a period of one month for the offence punishable under Section 504 of IPC. The petitioner is sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.3,000/and in default of payment of fine, to undergo S.I. for a period of one month for the offence punishable under Section 506 of IPC. The petitioner is sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.20,000/and in default of payment of fine, to undergo S.I. for a period of three months for the offence punishable under Section 324 of IPC. The fine amount if recovered, a sum of Rs.20,000/shall be paid to PW1 Smt. Renukamma as compensation. The accused-petitioner is directed to deposit the entire fine amount including the amount already deposited if any, before the trial court within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.