JUDGMENT : 1. This appeal is preferred against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the Court of Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court-II, Karwar, Uttar Kannada, in Sessions Case No.53/2007 dated 31.03.2011, wherein the accused/appellant has been convicted and sentenced for offences punishable under Sections 504, 506 and 307 of IPC. 2. For the offence punishable under Section 504 of IPC, the accused is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month, for the offence punishable under Section 506 of IPC, he is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months and for the offence punishable under Section 307 of IPC, he is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of another three months. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent-State and perused the material on record. 4. The factual matrix of the case as borne out from the records are as under: PW-1 Smt. Devaki Hanumanth Gouda is a resident of Mundagi Kalve Grama of Kumta taluk. PW-6, Hanumanth Kuppu Gouda is her husband. The accused is also a resident of the same village. About one month prior to the alleged incident, the Government was forming a link road to connect Gonihole Khatri and Sirsi Nilkund main road. The said link road was supposed to be formed through the lands of PW-1, PW-6 and accused. The accused had requested the authorities not to form the road through his land on a higher level instead to form the road through his land situated on the lower side. PW-1 and PW-6 also requested the authority to change the course of the road and pursuant to the said request, new road was formed passing through the land of the accused in the higher level. Hence, the accused was nursing grudge against PW-1 and PW-6. 5. On 04.01.2007, at about 8 a.m, while PW-1 and PW-6 were removing the mud in their field, the accused came and abused PW-6 by using filthy language stating that because of them he lost his fertile land. Thereafter, he assaulted PW-6 with a sickle on his head, left shoulder, right hand and other parts of the body. PW-6 collapsed on the ground. Thereafter, he assaulted PW-6 with a sickle on his head, left shoulder, right hand and other parts of the body. PW-6 collapsed on the ground. When his wife PW-1 questioned the accused as to why he is assaulting her husband, the accused saying that he has already finished her husband, assaulted PW-1 with the same sickle on her head. On hearing the hue and cry of PW-1, her sister Nagamma Govinda Gouda/PW-7, her brother-in-law Ramachandra Kuppu Gouda/CW-11, Hammu Kuppu Gouda/PW-10 and other villagers rushed to the spot. Seeing them, the accused ran away throwing the sickle. 6. PWs-1 and 6 were shifted to Government Hospital, Kumta. PW-6 was shifted for higher treatment to a major hospital in Goa. The statement of PW-1 was recorded in the Government Hospital, Kumta, as per Ex.P.1 by the PSI-PW-11, Kumta Police Station. Accused came to be arrested on the same day and at his instance, the sickle-M.O.9 was recovered. On completion of investigation, PW-14, the Police Sub-Inspector filed charge-sheet against the accused. 7. After committal of the case to the Court of Sessions, the learned Sessions Judge framed charges against the appellant/accused for offences punishable under Sections 504, 506 and 307 of IPC. Accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 8. The learned Sessions Judge after considering the evidence and material on record convicted and sentenced the accused-appellant for the charged offences as noted supra. 9. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant has contended that the prosecution has failed to prove its case against the appellant beyond all reasonable doubt. She has contended that all the witnesses are interested and there are several discrepancies in their evidence. As such, their evidence cannot be accepted to convict the accused. She contends that a false case was lodged against the appellant as he had complained against some illegal activities of the complainant’s husband namely, PW-6. She contends that even if the case of the prosecution is accepted, then it cannot be said that there was any intention on the part of the appellant to commit the murder of PW-6. Even though the witnesses have stated that they were present at the scene of occurrence, however, they have not tried to intervene or even PW-6 has not tried to defend himself though he was holding a pick axe and other agricultural instruments. Even though the witnesses have stated that they were present at the scene of occurrence, however, they have not tried to intervene or even PW-6 has not tried to defend himself though he was holding a pick axe and other agricultural instruments. She therefore contends that the incident has not taken place as alleged by the prosecution. She further contends that there is no convincing evidence to hold that the injured has sustained any grievous injuries. She therefore, contends that the entire approach of the learned Sessions Judge in convicting and sentencing the accused has resulted in miscarriage of justice. Accordingly, she prays to allow the appeal. 10. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader has contended that in view of the evidence of the injured witnesses namely PWs-1 and 6 which is supported by the medical evidence, the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubts. He contends that the accused has assaulted PWs-1 and 6 on the vital parts of their body with an intention to commit their murder and therefore, submits that the Court below was justified in convicting the accused for the charged offences. Accordingly, seeks to dismiss the appeal. 11. In order to establish the guilt of the accused, the prosecution has got examined PWs-1 to 15 and got marked Exs.P.1 to 16 as well as M.Os.1 to 9. 12. PW-1 and PW-6 are the injured witnesses. The case of the prosecution is that on 04.01.2007 when PW-1 and her husband (PW-6) were removing mud in their land, accused went there holding a sickle and abused PW-6 in filthy language and stating that he will not leave them, assaulted PW-6 with the sickle all over his body and assaulted on the head of PW-1 who tried to intervene and attempted to commit their murder. 13. According to the prosecution, PWs-3, 7 and 10 are the other eye witnesses to the incident in question. PW-3 is the sister-in-law of PW-6. A careful perusal of her evidence goes to show that when she came to the spot, the accused was assaulting PW-1 on her head. Thereafter, he ran away from the spot after throwing the sickle. PW-7 is the elder sister of PW-1. It is elicited in her cross-examination that she went and informed PW-3 and thereafter, PW-3 came to the spot. Thereafter, he ran away from the spot after throwing the sickle. PW-7 is the elder sister of PW-1. It is elicited in her cross-examination that she went and informed PW-3 and thereafter, PW-3 came to the spot. It is also elicited that the house of PW-3 is situated about 1 km away. She has stated that after half an hour, PW3 came to the spot. Similarly, she has stated that she is not aware as to when CW11 and PW10 came to the spot. If the evidence of PW7 is appreciated, then it is difficult to accept that PW3 is an eye-witness to the incident. PW7 has clearly stated that PW3 came to the spot after she informed about the incident, which is half an hour after the incident. Even according to PW10, it was PW7 namely Nagamma Govind Gouda who came and informed about the incident of assault. Immediately, he went to the spot, at that time, PW6 had fallen on ground. According to him, he saw the accused assaulting PW1 with a sickle on her head, thereafter, the accused threw the sickle and ran away from the spot. PW7 has not stated that she informed PW10 about the incident. In the cross-examination, she has stated that she does not remember as to when Hammu Kuppu Gouda (PW10) came to the spot. She has only stated that she informed PW3 about the incident in question. Hence, it is difficult to accept the case of the prosecution that PW3 and PW10 are the eye-witnesses to the incident in question. 14. According to PW7, she was working near the land of the injured at about 8 a.m. on 4.1.2007. She has stated that the accused came to the spot holding a sickle and started abusing PW6 and assaulted on his head and other parts of the body and when PW1 tried to intervene, she was also assaulted by the accused with the same sickle on her head. 15. PW1 and PW6 are the injured witnesses. Their evidence clearly disclose that this accused came near the place where they were digging the mud. He assaulted PW6 on his head and other parts of the body with a sickle. When PW1 tried to intervene, the accused assaulted her with the same sickle on her head. Immediately thereafter, the people who gathered there shifted both PW1 and PW6 to Government Hospital, Kumta. He assaulted PW6 on his head and other parts of the body with a sickle. When PW1 tried to intervene, the accused assaulted her with the same sickle on her head. Immediately thereafter, the people who gathered there shifted both PW1 and PW6 to Government Hospital, Kumta. In the said hospital, they were treated by PW8-Dr. Deepak K Naik. It is seen that PW8 gave first aid treatment to PW6 and thereafter, he was referred to a major hospital. As such, PW6 was taken to a Hospital at Bambolim, Goa wherein he was examined and treated by PW15-Dr. Wilfred D’souza. 16. Insofar as the injuries sustained by PW1 is concerned, wound certificate issued by PW8 as per Ex.P9 goes to show that she sustained cut lacerated wound measuring 10cms x 3cms (parietal area). The said injury is stated to be simple in nature. There is no wound certificate issued in respect of PW6 from General Hospital, Kumta. However, PW15 has issued Wound Certificate in respect of PW6 as per Ex.P14. The injuries mentioned therein are as under: (a) Multiple lacerations both upper limbs with compound injuries. (b) Left shoulder with chip fracture of left acrominium with undisplaced fracture of head of left humerus with grade-II compound fracture of mid-shaft left ulna without distal neurovascular deficit with lacerations of the scalp. The said injuries are stated to be grievous in nature. 17. According to the prosecution, sickle was recovered at the instance of the accused. The said sickle is marked as MO9. PW15 has given opinion that if a person is assaulted by sickle(MO9), the above said injuries could be caused. The witnesses have stated that after assaulting PW1 and 6, the accused ran away from the spot throwing the sickle in the bush. The said sickle was recovered at the instance of accused under a mahazar-Ex.P6 in the presence of panch witness namely PW5. 18. The prosecution has alleged that the accused assaulted both PW1 and PW6 with an intention to commit their murder. Insofar as assault on PW1 is concerned, it is alleged that when she questioned the accused as to why he has assaulted PW6, at that time, he caused injuries on her head with the sickle. The defence taken by the accused is that a false case was foisted against him, because he was giving information with regard to sale of illicit liquor by PW6. The defence taken by the accused is that a false case was foisted against him, because he was giving information with regard to sale of illicit liquor by PW6. Even though it was elicited from PW6 in his cross-examination that the accused was giving information regarding illicit sale of liquor, however, he has denied that on that ground he lodged a false complaint against him. The fact remains that both PW1 and 6 have sustained injuries. Same has been corroborated by medical evidence. PW8 and PW15 are the doctors who have treated PW1 and PW6 respectively and issued wound certificates marked as Exs.P9 and P14 and therefore, the prosecution has been able to establish that the accused caused injuries to both PW1 and PW6 with the sickle. 19. From the evidence of both PW1 and PW6, it is seen that after the accused assaulted PW6, he fell down and when PW1 questioned the accused, he assaulted on her head with the sickle. The injuries sustained by PW6 are simple in nature and there is no material to show that the accused once again tried to assault PW1 with the same sickle so as to do away with her life. Insofar as PW6 is concerned, it is not alleged that even after he fell down, the accused tried to assault him so as to commit his murder. PW8 has stated that the injuries caused could be possible with a sickle and he has further stated that if the said injuries were deeper, then that would have caused the death. Therefore, it shows that the injuries sustained by PW1 and PW6 were not sufficient in the ordinary course to cause their death. 20. According to the prosecution, the injuries sustained by PW6 are grievous in nature. PW15, who issued Ex.P14-Wound Certificate in respect of PW6 has stated that X-ray findings show that there was undisplaced fracture of mid-shaft left ulna etc. However, in the cross-examination, he has admitted that he has not taken or kept X-ray of the injured. He has also stated that he is not aware as to whether Goa Medical College Hospital authorities has handed over the X-ray film to Kumta Hospital. Hence, even though he has stated as per X-ray findings PW6 had sustained fracture, however, he has admitted that he has not taken or kept X-ray of the injured. He has also stated that he is not aware as to whether Goa Medical College Hospital authorities has handed over the X-ray film to Kumta Hospital. Hence, even though he has stated as per X-ray findings PW6 had sustained fracture, however, he has admitted that he has not taken or kept X-ray of the injured. X-ray films are not produced and marked in evidence. The prosecution when alleges that the injured has suffered grievous injuries on the basis of the fractures sustained by him, it is equally important for the prosecution to establish the said fact beyond all reasonable doubts. As per Ex.P14, the injured-PW6 was discharged on 6.1.2007. Hence, it cannot be said that the prosecution has established its case against the accused that he assaulted PW1 and 6 with an intention to commit their murder or that PW-6 sustained grievous injuries. 21. From the evidence and material on record, the prosecution has been able to establish that the accused came to the spot and intimidated PW-1 and PW-6 and caused injuries to PW1 and PW6 with a dangerous weapon(sickle) and therefore, there is no hesitation to hold that the accused has committed the offences punishable under Sections 324, 504 and 506 of IPC. 22. The incident has taken place in the year 2007. 13 years have already passed. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant/accused submits that subsequent to the incident, there is no untoward incident which has taken place between the accused and the complainant or her husband. The accused was arrested on the same day i.e. on the date of incident and it is submitted that he was in judicial custody for about 22 days. There are no previous bad antecedents against the accused and there are no allegations of misusing the liberty granted to him, while he was on bail. In the said facts and circumstances, period already undergone by the accused may be sufficient sentence, with increased fine amount. Hence, the following : ORDER (a) The appeal is allowed in part. (b) The judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed in SC No.53/2007 on the file of the learned Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court-II, Karwar, Uttara Kannada, dated 31.3.2011, insofar as convicting and sentencing the appellant/accused for offence punishable under Section 307 of IPC is hereby set-aside. (c) The appellant/accused is convicted for the offence punishable under Section 324 IPC. (b) The judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed in SC No.53/2007 on the file of the learned Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court-II, Karwar, Uttara Kannada, dated 31.3.2011, insofar as convicting and sentencing the appellant/accused for offence punishable under Section 307 of IPC is hereby set-aside. (c) The appellant/accused is convicted for the offence punishable under Section 324 IPC. (d) The conviction in respect of Sections 504 and 506 of IPC is hereby confirmed. However, sentence is modified. (e) For the offence punishable under Sections 324, 504 and 506 of IPC, appellant/accused is sentenced to the period of imprisonment already undergone by him. (f) For the offence punishable under Section 324 of IPC, the appellant/accused shall pay a fine of Rs.50,000/-, in default of payment of fine, he shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months. (g) If the fine amount is deposited/recovered, a sum of Rs.30,000/- shall be paid to PW6 and a sum of Rs.10,000/- shall be paid to PW1. (h) The order with regard to confiscation of MOs5, 6 and 9 to the State and with regard to MOs1 to 4, 7 and 8 shall remain intact.