K.S. Mudagal JUDGMENT
K.S. Mudagal, J.
1. Aggrieved by the Judgment and Order dated 30.07.2012 passed by the learned Fast Track Court Judge, Chikmagalur, in Crl.A. No. 244/2010, the State has preferred this appeal.
2. By the impugned Judgment and Order, the Fast Track Court set aside the order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Civil Judge and JMFC, N.R. Pura in C.C. No. 193/2010 on 22/30.11.2010.
3. The respondent herein is the accused in C.C. No. 193/2010. For the purpose of convenience, he will be referred to hereafter as Accused'.
4. The brief facts of the case are as follows:
N.R. Pura Police charge-sheeted the accused in Crime No. 12/2010 for the offences punishable under Sections 324, 326, 504 and 506 of I.P.C. on the basis of the complaint of P.W. 1-Savithri as at Ex. P1. The gist of the said complaint is as follows:
That on 30.01.2010 at 8.00 p.m. when herself [P.W. 1], her husband Suresha [P.W. 2] and their farm servant Kum. Srimathi [P.W. 3] were proceeding near the house of the accused in their village, for the purpose of dropping P.W. 3 to her house, the accused due to some previous ill-will, came from the hind side and assaulted her husband with the club on the head, back and left hand and caused bleeding injuries. When her husband raised alarm and she went to his rescue, the accused assaulted her also on her right hand and right leg with the club and caused bleeding injuries. Further, the accused abused them in foul language and criminally intimidated them, then dropped the club and went away. Since it was night and there was no conveyance to go to hospital, they went to hospital in the morning and after taking treatment, came to the Police Station and filed the complaint.
5. On the basis of the aforesaid complaint, the learned Magistrate took cognizance of commission of the offences and after hearing the parties, framed the charges for the offences punishable under Sections 326, 324, 504 and 506(2) of I.P.C. The trial Court recorded the plea of the accused. He denied the charges and claimed trial. Therefore, the trial was conducted.
6. In support of the case of the prosecution, P.Ws. 1 to 8 were examined, Exs. P1 to 5 and M.O.1 were marked. The Trial Court examined the accused with reference to the incriminating materials. The accused did not adduce any oral evidence, but on his behalf Ex. D1 was marked by way of confrontation to P.W. 2.
7. The trial Court after hearing the parties, convicted the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 324, 326, 504 and 506 of I.P.C. and sentenced him to imprisonment for various terms and fine for all those offences, the maximum one being the imprisonment of two years and fine of Rs. 3,000-00 for the offence under Section 326 of I.P.C.
8. The trial Court based the conviction on the following grounds:
(1) The charges are proved by the eviden........