JUDGMENT : G. BASAVARAJA, J. 1. Appellants have preferred this appeal against the judgment of conviction and order on sentence dated 03.01.2013 passed in SC.No.1274/2010 by the Principal City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore (for short 'the trial Court'). 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein are referred to as per their rank before the trial Court. 3. Brief facts leading to this appeal are that, the Police Inspector, K.P.Agrahara Station laid a charge sheet against the accused for the offence under Section 341, 504, 324, 307 r/w 34 of IPC. It is alleged by the prosecution that, CW.1/PW.1-S.Somashekar was running the auto of CW.2-N.Ravi on rent and the working hours were from 9.30-10.00 A.M. to 11.00 P.M. On 13.07.2010, CW.1/PW.1 took the auto at 9.30 A.M. from the auto shed and returned by 11.30 P.M. PW.1 and CW.2 Ravi came from the auto shed. At that time, accused Nos.1 and 2 were waiting for him at some distance from the auto shed and accused No.1 Raja abused him as 'bolimagane' for, during the previous week he intervened and pacified the quarrel between CW.2-Ravi and CW.3-Vinod. Accused No.1 stating so, he took out knife from his right pocket and assaulted on his neck. At that time, CW.2-Ravi came to his rescue and accused No.2-Soma assaulted him with knife on his left thumb and accused No.2 made an attempt to assault CW.2 on his face with knife, and to avoid the blow CW.2 raised his left hand and sustained injury to his left hand thumb. At that time, CW.5-Jayaram and CW.6- Raghavendra also came to pacify the quarrel and accused Nos.1 and 2 fled from the spot. 4. PW.1 sustained injury on the left side of his neck and there was bleeding on his T-shirt and banian. Within 5-10 minutes, the police came to the spot and PW.1 and CW.2 were shifted to hospital. The Doctor stitched the wound and then the complainant went to the Police Station at 3.00 am (midnight) and lodged his complaint as per Ex.P1 and his signature is at Ex.P1(a). 5. PW.1 under Ex.P1, has set the criminal law into motion and PW.9-Chikkakariyappa, PSI, recorded the statement of PW.1 and registered the case in Crime No. 193/2010 for the offence u/s 307 r/w 34 of IPC. 6. On investigation, the IO has submitted charge sheet against accused for the of commission of alleged offences. 5. PW.1 under Ex.P1, has set the criminal law into motion and PW.9-Chikkakariyappa, PSI, recorded the statement of PW.1 and registered the case in Crime No. 193/2010 for the offence u/s 307 r/w 34 of IPC. 6. On investigation, the IO has submitted charge sheet against accused for the of commission of alleged offences. The accused Nos.1 and 2 were arrested by the Police on 14.07.2010 and enlarged on bail on 03.08.2010 as per the order passed by the Fast Track Court-XIII, Bangalore in Crl.Misc.No.3148/2010. After filing the charge sheet, case was registered in CC.No.40211/2010. Thereafter, case was committed to the Court of Sessions and case was registered in SC.No.1274/2010. On hearing the charges, the trial Court has framed the charges for the commission of offence under sections 341, 504, 324, 307 read with 34 of IPC. Same was read over and explained to the accused. Having understood the same, accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 7. To prove the guilt of the accused, Ten witnesses were examined as PWs.1 to 10. Ten documents were marked as Exhibits P1 to 10. Three material objects were marked as MO.Nos.1 to 3. 8. On closure of prosecution side evidence, statement under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. was recorded. The accused have totally denied the evidence of prosecution witnesses. However, they did not choose to lead any defence evidence on their behalf. 9. Having heard the arguments on both sides, trial Court has acquitted the accused for the offence under sections 341, 504 and 307 r/w 34 of IPC. However, convicted the accused Nos.1 and 2 for the offence under Section 324 r/w 34 of IPC. The trial Court has passed a sentence to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of 2 years and to pay a fine of Rs.3,000/- each for the offence under Section 324 r/w 34 of IPC. Being aggrieved by this judgment of conviction and order on sentence, appellants have preferred this appeal. 10. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of appellants would submit that, the trial Court has not properly appreciated the evidence on record in accordance with law and facts. There are material omissions and contradictions and improvements in the evidence of prosecution witnesses. However, the trial Court has convicted the accused and sought for acquittal of the accused. 10. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of appellants would submit that, the trial Court has not properly appreciated the evidence on record in accordance with law and facts. There are material omissions and contradictions and improvements in the evidence of prosecution witnesses. However, the trial Court has convicted the accused and sought for acquittal of the accused. Alternatively, the learned counsel further submits that, if the court comes to the conclusion that the judgment of conviction passed by the trial Court under Section 324 and with 34 of IPC is justified, then this Court can modify the sentence on the ground that the accused have not been convicted in any other case prior to the present case and commission of alleged offence under Section 324 IPC is punishable with imprisonment of either description of a term which may extend to 3 years or with fine or with both. 11. As against this, the learned HCGP, Sri B.Lakshman, would submit that the trial Court has properly appreciated the evidence on record in accordance with law and facts and sought for dismissal of the appeal. 12. Having heard the arguments on both sides and on perusal of the materials placed before this Court, the following points would arise for my consideration: (1) Whether appellants have made out grounds to set aside the judgment of conviction passed by the trial Court under Section 324 r/w 34 of IPC? (2) Whether appellants have made out grounds to modify the sentence passed by the trial Court? (3) What order? 13. My answer to the above points are as under: (1) In Negative. (2) Partly in Affirmative (3) As per final order. 14. I have examined the materials placed before this court. On the basis of the complaint filed by one S.Somashekar-PW1, S/o Siddaiah (Late), K.P. Agrahara Police have registered the case in Crime No.193/2010 against the accused No.1 - Raja alias Dobi Raja, accused No.2 - Soma alias Tractor Soma, for the commission of offence under Section 307 read with 34 of IPC. After investigation, the Investigating Officer has submitted the charge sheet against accused Nos.1 and 2 for the commission of offence under sections 341, 504, 324, 307 read with 34 of IPC. To substantiate the case of the prosecution, prosecution has examined ten witnesses as PWs.1 to 10. Ten documents were marked as Exhibits P1 to 10. After investigation, the Investigating Officer has submitted the charge sheet against accused Nos.1 and 2 for the commission of offence under sections 341, 504, 324, 307 read with 34 of IPC. To substantiate the case of the prosecution, prosecution has examined ten witnesses as PWs.1 to 10. Ten documents were marked as Exhibits P1 to 10. Three material objects were marked as MO.Nos.1 to 3. 15. On careful examination of the entire evidence placed before the Sessions Court, the trial Court has appreciated the evidence of the prosecution witnesses in length and on consideration of the facts, oral and documentary evidence, the trial Court has acquitted the accused for the commission of offence under sections 341, 504, 307 r/w 34 IPC. However, convicted accused Nos.1 and 2 for the offence under Section 324 r/w 34 of IPC. 16. On re-appreciation / re-examination / reconsideration of the entire evidence on record, I do not find any legal or factual error in the judgment of conviction for the offence under Section 324 r/w section 34 of IPC. Accordingly, I answer point number 1 in affirmative. 17. With regard to the modification of the sentence is concerned, it is necessary to mention here as to the portion of the order passed by the trial Court regarding sentence. Same reads as under: "A-1 Raja @ Dobi Raja and A-2 Soma @ Tractor Soma are sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 2 (two) years and to pay a fine of Rs.3,000/- (three thousand) each, and in default of payment of fine amount, the accused shall undergo further simple imprisonment for 8 (eight) months for the offence under section 324 r/w 34 of IPC. Out of the fine amount of Rs.3000/- each, an amount of Rs.2000/- each shall be paid to P.Ws.1 and 4/injured. The accused are entitled to the benefit of set off of the custody period which they have already undergone u/s 428 Cr.P.C. Furnish copy of the judgment and order to accused free of cost. M.Os.1 to 3 being worthless are ordered to be destroyed. The order regarding disposal of M.Os.1 to 3 shall have to come into effect only after expiry of the appeal period." 18. The trial Court has not assigned reasons for not exercising the power under the provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958. M.Os.1 to 3 being worthless are ordered to be destroyed. The order regarding disposal of M.Os.1 to 3 shall have to come into effect only after expiry of the appeal period." 18. The trial Court has not assigned reasons for not exercising the power under the provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958. The commission of alleged offence under Section 324 of IPC is punishable with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to 3 years or with fine or with both. Accused Nos.1 and 2 are in judicial custody for a period of 19 days. There are no materials to show that accused have been convicted for any offences prior to the alleged incident. This is the first offence committed by accused Nos.1 and 2. Now, the age of the accused No.1 is 60 years and accused No.2 is about 50 years. 19. Injuries shown in Exs.P4 and 5 reveals that, injuries are simple in nature. Taking into consideration of the nature and gravity of offence, injuries caused to the injured and the age and occupation of the accused, I am of the considered opinion that, it is just and proper to reduce the sentence to 19 days from 2 years. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER (i) Appeal is partly allowed. (ii) The judgment of conviction dated 03.01.2013 passed in SC.No.1274/2010 by the Principal City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore, is confirmed. (iii) The sentence passed by the Principal City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore is modified as under: (a) Accused Nos.1 and 2 are sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 19 days and to pay a fine of Rs.3,000/- each. (b) The order sheet reveals that accused have already remitted the fine amount. The trial court is directed to disburse the amount of Rs.2,000/- each to PW.1 and PW.4 injured, and the remaining amount shall be forfeited to Government. (c) Accused Nos.1 and 2 have already undergone imprisonment of a period of 19 days in judicial custody. Hence, same is set-off under Section 428 of Cr.P.C. (d) Registry is directed to send copy of the judgment along with trial Court records to the concerned Court.