ORDER : The present petitioner was tried as accused by the Court of learned Civil Judge & J.M.F.C., Jagaluru, (hereinafter for brevity referred to as the `trial Court') in C.C.No.888/2011, for the offences punishable under Sections 504, 326, 506 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter for brevity referred to as the `IPC') and was convicted by the judgment of conviction and order on sentence dated 14.03.2013. Aggrieved by the same, the accused preferred an appeal in Criminal Appeal No.40/2013, before the learned I Addl.District & Sessions Judge, Davanagere, (hereinafter for brevity referred to as the `Sessions Judge’s Court'), which after hearing both side, dismissed the appeal filed by the accused by its judgment dated 17.12.2016. Being aggrieved by the same, the accused have preferred the present revision petition. 2. The summary of the case of the prosecution is that the complainant was the sitting Member of Grama Panchayat of the village called Sokke. The accused was a defeated candidate and was an Ex-Grama Panchayat Member of the same village, as such, he had rivalry against the complainant. On the date 10.06.2011, in the afternoon, at about 12.00 O’Clock, the complainant had been to the inspection of the Veterinary Hospital building in the village since its inauguration was scheduled on the next day. He was accompanied by CW-5 and CW-6. At that time, the accused in an inebriated condition, abused the complainant in filthy language and also dragged him with his hands by making his hand to pass through the iron rods fixed on the railings of the staircase and twisted his hand. Apart from the same, he also took out a stone and assaulted on the right shoulder of the complainant causing grievous hurt to him. In addition to that, he also put a life threat to the complainant, however, the complainant was rescued by the people present there and thus, the accused has committed the offences punishable under Sections 504, 326 and 506 of IPC 3. In order to prove the alleged guilt against the accused, the prosecution got examined nine witnesses from PW-1 to PW-9 and got marked documents from Exs.P-1 to P-5 and got produced the stone and marked it as MO-1. Neither any witness was examined nor any documents were marked as exhibits from the side of the accused. 4. In order to prove the alleged guilt against the accused, the prosecution got examined nine witnesses from PW-1 to PW-9 and got marked documents from Exs.P-1 to P-5 and got produced the stone and marked it as MO-1. Neither any witness was examined nor any documents were marked as exhibits from the side of the accused. 4. After hearing both side, the trial Court by its impugned judgment of conviction and order on sentence dated 14.03.2013, convicted the accused (present petitioner) for the offences punishable under Sections 504, 326, 506 of IPC and sentenced him accordingly. As observed above, the appeal challenging the said judgment of conviction and order on sentence filed in the learned Sessions Judge's Court in Criminal Appeal No.40/2013, also came to be dismissed. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner/accused has filed the present petition. 5. The trial Court and the Sessions Judge’s Court’s records were called for and the same are placed before this Court. 6. Though this matter is listed for admission, however, with the consent of learned counsel from both side, the matter is taken up for its final disposal. 7. Heard the arguments of learned counsel from both side. Perused the materials placed before this Court including the trial Court and Sessions Judge’s Court’s records. 8. For the sake of convenience, the parties would be henceforth referred to as per their rankings before the trial Court. 9. After hearing the learned counsel from both side, the only point that arise for my consideration in this revision petition is: Whether the concurrent finding recorded by the trial Court, as well as the Sessions Judge’s Court that the accused committed the alleged offences punishable under Sections 504, 326, 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, warrants any interference at the hands of this Court? 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner in his argument submitted that even though the prosecution has contended that the complainant was referred to a higher hospital at Davanagere for his further treatment, but, neither the medical records of the said further treatment has been produced by the prosecution nor the treating doctor in the said hospital has been examined, as such, it cannot be believed that the complainant had sustained any grievous hurt. He also submitted that the complainant has not stated anything about he being assaulted with stone leading to the grievous hurt upon him in his complaint, as such, the evidence given to that effect amounts to an improvement. He also stated that even if it is assumed that the accused has abused the complainant in filthy language, but, the same may be due to sudden provocation, as such, Section 504 of IPC is also not made out. He further submitted that Section 506 of IPC is also not made out, as such, both the impugned judgments deserves to be set aside and accused deserves to be acquitted. 11. Learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent in her argument submitted that all the material witnesses, including the complainant and the eye witnesses have supported the case of the prosecution. Their evidence has come out in uniformity. The doctor who at first instance treated the injured has led her evidence and she has categorically stated that the injured had sustained fracture injury, as such, Section 326 of IPC is made out. She further submitted that the evidence of prosecution witnesses would further go to show that the accused has abused the complainant in a public place in filthy language and has put life threat to him. As such, the offences punishable under Sections 504 and 506 of IPC are also made out. Thus, the impugned judgment of conviction does not warrant any interference at the hands of this Court. 12. PW-1 is the complainant and alleged victim in the alleged incident. PW-4, PW-5 and PW-7 are said to be the eye witnesses to the incident. PW-1, PW-4 and PW-5 have uniformly stated that on the alleged date of the incident, when PW-1 had been to the Veterinary Hospital building for its inspection, PW4 & PW5 too were present in the spot. It was at that time, the accused who was in an inebriated condition, went there and abused the complainant in filthy language and holding his hand, passed it through the iron railings fixed to the staircase and also picked up a stone lying there and assaulted on the right shoulder of the complainant and put life threat to the complainant. It was at that time, the accused who was in an inebriated condition, went there and abused the complainant in filthy language and holding his hand, passed it through the iron railings fixed to the staircase and also picked up a stone lying there and assaulted on the right shoulder of the complainant and put life threat to the complainant. PW-4 and PW-5 have further stated that after seeing the incident, they have rescued the complainant and shifted the injured to Government Hospital at Jagaluru in an ambulance and after the first aid treatment, he was shifted to Bapuji Hospital at Davanagere for further treatment. PW-1 has further stated that since the accused assaulted him with the stone and also twisted his hand by passing it through the iron railings, he sustained fractures of bones of his right shoulder which was surgically operated and a steel rod has been inserted. Further all these three witnesses have identified the accused in the Court and also have identified the stone at MO-1 with which the accused had assaulted the complainant. In the cross-examination of these three witnesses, nothing could be elicited from the accused side leading to suspect the evidence of PW-1, PW-4 and PW-5. On the other hand, PW-1 in his cross-examination has given further details of his acquaintance with the accused and the incident. He has stated that accused was known to him since about twenty years. He further stated that at the time of the incident, there were neighbours who were about twenty to thirty in number in the spot, however, except CW-4 and CW-5, none else have rushed to his rescue. He has also given the details of the place of the incident with its boundary. The witness has specifically stated that it was due to political rivalry and the previous enmity which the accused had against him, the accused has committed the said act. He denied a suggestion that he sustained the injury by falling down from a motorcycle. Thus, PW-1 has further strengthened his evidence in his cross-examination by giving more details about the incident and giving the details about the alleged motive behind the incident. 13. He denied a suggestion that he sustained the injury by falling down from a motorcycle. Thus, PW-1 has further strengthened his evidence in his cross-examination by giving more details about the incident and giving the details about the alleged motive behind the incident. 13. PW-7 who at the relevant point of time was the Panchayat Development Officer of Sokke Grama Panchayat, had stated that he has seen the incident as he along with other members of the Grama Panchayat were present in the spot. He has further stated that the inauguration of the Veterinary Hospital in their village was scheduled to be held on 11.06.2011, for which, Member of Parliament, Member of Legislative Assembly and other elected representatives were scheduled to come. In that regard, for the inspection of the building, when he had been there, at which time, CW-4 had also came to the spot and the accused was present there. A verbal exchange of words took place between CW-1 and the accused about the development of panchayat. The said verbal exchange of words grew further resulting into altercations between them. He has stated that he attempted to resolve the dispute, however, he has not observed as to who assaulted whom and with what. Though he was treated as hostile at the request of the prosecution and the prosecution was permitted to cross-examine him, but, nothing more could be elicited by the prosecution from the witness. This witness was not cross-examined from the accused side. As such, the evidence of this witness remained undisputed from the accused side. 14. The evidence of PW-7 clearly go to show that an incident of verbal exchange of words and altercations has taken place between the accused and the complainant on the date, time and place as alleged in the charge sheet. More importantly, this witness has not stated that no incident of assault by one among them on the spot has taken place, but, he has stated that he did not see as to who assaulted whom. On the other hand, he has stated that, at the time of incident, CW-4 was also present along with him. Even PW-1 has also stated about the presence of CW-4 and CW-5. CW-4 and CW-5 were examined as PW-4 and PW-5 and they have supported the case of the prosecution in its entirety as observed above. On the other hand, he has stated that, at the time of incident, CW-4 was also present along with him. Even PW-1 has also stated about the presence of CW-4 and CW-5. CW-4 and CW-5 were examined as PW-4 and PW-5 and they have supported the case of the prosecution in its entirety as observed above. They have given a detailed account of the incident and have categorically stated that accused assaulted the complainant for no reasons, that too, by using a stone. As observed above, they have not only identified the accused, but, also the stone at MO-1 alleged to have been used by the accused. Even in their cross-examination, the alleged incident was not denied, but, more details were elicited about the incident from them. As such, the evidence of PW-1, PW-4 and PW-5, which is further partly supported by the evidence of PW-7, makes it very clear that the incident as alleged on the date, time and place in the charge sheet has taken place and in the manner alleged in the charge sheet. 15. PW-2 and PW-3 have further supported the case of the prosecution by stating that scene of offence panchanama at Ex.P-2 was drawn in their presence and the stone at MO-1 was seized under the same panchanama in their presence. Thus, the place of offence and the seizure of the stone from the spot has also been established by the evidence of these two witnesses. 16. PW-8 and PW-9 are the police witnesses who have spoken about the registration of the crime and conducting investigation in the matter up to the filing of the charge sheet against the accused. 17. The primary argument of learned counsel for the petitioner is that there is no medical evidence to show that the complainant sustained grievous injuries as alleged in the charge sheet. No doubt, the treating doctor at Bapuji Hospital, Davanagere and medical records of the said hospital pertaining to the complainant were neither examined nor produced respectively by the prosecution, however, PW-6 Dr.Nalina, who treated the injured at the first instance being a Medical Officer at General Hospital, Jagaluru, has stated that on 10.06.2011, at about 3.30 p.m. she has examined the complainant who had come to her hospital with the history of assault. She has stated that when she examined him, she noticed a blunt injury over right lower one-third of arm upto elbow and tenderness was present. After administering the first aid treatment to him, the patient was referred to Bapuji Hospital, at Davanagere for further treatment. She has stated that the injured was inpatient in the said hospital at Davanagere from 10.06.2011 to 02.07.2011. She has examined the X-ray report and noticed that the injured CW-1 had sustained the fracture of right humerus, which injury was grievous in nature. She has identified the wound certificate issued by her at Ex.P-3. She has further stated that injured himself gave her the history of injury stating that it was one Siddappa who assaulted him. In her cross-examination, it was not denied that she had treated the complainant and had also gone through the medical records of the treatment of the complainant at Bapuji Hospital, Davanagere, including the X-ray report. In her cross-examination, it was also not denied about her evidence that injured had sustained grievous injury in the nature of fracture of right humerus. In that background, when the medical evidence given by none else than the treating doctor at first instance, who has stated that she has gone through the radiological report of the injured also remains undenied and undisputed and also in view of the fact that the evidence of PW-1 that he sustained fracture of right shoulder, for which, he underwent a surgical operation, where a steel rod was inserted, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that in the absence of production of medical records of Bapuji Hospital, Davanagere or examining the treating doctor at Bapuji Hospital would vitiate the case of the prosecution, is not acceptable. 18. The complainant as PW-1 and the eye witnesses as PW-4 and PW-5 have clearly in an unequivocal terms stated that the accused abused the complainant in filthy language. Admittedly, the incident has taken place in a public place according to the complainant, as well PW-7. Apart from the complainant and accused, there were several other people who had witnessed the incident. Admittedly, the incident has taken place in a public place according to the complainant, as well PW-7. Apart from the complainant and accused, there were several other people who had witnessed the incident. As such, in a public place, in the presence of public, when the accused has abused the complainant in a filthy language for the previous enmity he had as against the complainant, it is a clear act of intentional insult of the complainant with the knowledge on the part of the accused that the same would cause him to break the public peace or commit any other offence. As such, Section 504 of IPC is also attracted in the present incident and the said offence is proved by the prosecution. 19. The evidence of PW-1, PW-4 and PW-5 further go to show that the accused apart from voluntarily causing grievous hurt to the complainant, had also threatened him of his life. Thus, the said act of the accused of putting life threat to the complainant in a public place is an act of criminal intimidation punishable under Section 506 of IPC, which offence also has been proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt. 20. Since the trial Court, as well the Sessions Judge’s Court after appreciating all these aspects in their proper perspective have rightly held the accused guilty of the alleged offences and since the trial Court passed an order of sentence which is proportionate to the gravity of the proven guilt against the accused, I do not find any reasons to interfere in it. 21. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER The Criminal Revision Petition is dismissed as devoid of merits. Registry to transmit a copy of this order to both the trial Court and also to the Sessions Judge’s Court along with their respective records forthwith.