PANDIRAJ, Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant has challenged his conviction and sentence for the offence punishable under Section 324 IPC., on a trial held by the Fast Tract Court [Sessions], Bangalore City.

(2.) THE facts reveal that on 23.03.2006 at about 10.00 p.m., when Thyagaraj -P.W.1 was in the house with his brothers and father -P.Ws.2 to 5, it is alleged that the accused [appellant herein], who is the cousin of the complainant came to the house, quarreled with them for share in the family property and abruptly assaulted him with a knife, thereby Thyagaraj sustained injury over his neck. The injured was shifted to the hospital for treatment and in the morning at about 5.00 a.m. on 24.03.2006, Thyagaraj submitted his complaint in the hospital as per Ex.P1, which came to be registered in Crime No.103/2006 for the offence punishable under Section 307 IPC. During the investigation, spot mahazar -Ex.P4 was held and the statements of the witnesses were recorded. The cloths of the injured were seized and on the arrest of the accused/appellant, he volunteered to produce M.O.3 -button knife and at his instance, the knife was recovered and it was seized under a mahazar. The seized articles were sent for the opinion of the expert and the FSL report -Ex.P10 was collected. After complying the formalities, the charge -sheet was laid against the appellant for the charge under Section 307 IPC. During the trial, P.Ws.1 to 12 were examined and in their presence Exs.P1 to 13 and M.Os.1 to 4 were marked. The statement of the appellant was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. No defence evidence was led on his behalf. The trial Court after hearing the counsel, convicted the appellant for the charge under Section 324 IPC and ordered him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 6 months and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000 -00, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month. Aggrieved by the conviction and sentence, the present appeal is filed.

(3.) I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and also learned High Court Government Pleader. The point that arises for my consideration is;