(1.) The trial Court convicted A1 and A2 under Sections 448 and 326 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months for the offence under section 448 IPC and rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months each for the offence under section 326 of IPC. A3 was also convicted under section 448 and 326 r/w. 34 IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months for the offence under section 448 r/w. 34 IPC and rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months for the offence under section 326 r/w. 34 IPC. The sentences had to run concurrently. In appeal the convictions and sentences passed against A2 and A3 were set aside and they were acquitted. However, the convictions under sections 448 and 326 IPC passed against A1 were upheld and the sentence under Section 448 IPC was also upheld, but the sentence of two years' rigorous imprisonment passed by the trial court for the offence under Section 326 IPC was reduced to one year and the sentence of six months' rigorous imprisonment in default of payment of fine was also reduced to three months' simple imprisonment. Hence this revision by A1.
(2.) The case of the prosecution was that on 4.3.1999 at about 11.00 P.M. A1 to A3 along with five unidentified offenders formed themselves into a group, armed with sticks and sickles and proceeded in a jeep to the house of B. Parandhamaiah with the common object of taking away B. Indrani who was the wife of A1. A1 used criminal force on Indrani and dragged her in order to take away from the house. Parents and brother of Indrani witnessed the incident and they tried to rescue Indrani, but A1 became angry and beat B. Parandamaiah with a stick on his right hand due to which he suffered deformity and swelling in his right hand. Certain overt acts were also attributed to A2 and A3. In the present revision as this Court is not concerned with A2 and A3 who were acquitted, therefore that evidence may not be discussed. Neighbours came to the scene of occurrence and accused left the place in a jeep. A complaint was given by B. Parandhamaiah orally to Assistant Sub-Inspector of police who recorded his statement, registered a case in Cr.No. 13 of 1999 under Sections 448 and 324 IPC and arrested the accused. Charges were framed against the accused. The accused pleaded not guilty. Prosecution examined nine witnesses and the trial Court, considering the evidence, convicted the accused persons. Since A2 and A3 have already been acquitted and A1 has been convicted under sections 448 and 326 IPC, this Court will have to see what was the evidence against him.
(3.) P.W.1 is father of Indrani who is the wife of A1. He stated that he received a fracture on his right hand and his son Purushotam also received injuries. His daughter also received injuries on her right leg. The incident took place a year back at 11.00 P.M. at his house. On that day, he, his wife, daughter and son were in the house. After they took meals, they were watching television. At that time A1 called them and A2 and A3 were along with him. All the accused trespassed into his house and they tried to drag his daughter. When he intervened to rescue her, A1 beat him with a stick on his right hand and he received fracture. A2 beat his son with a stick on his left hand ring finger. They raised cries hearing which neighbours came to the scene of occurrence. The accused threatened them with sickles that were brought in a taxi. They came in the taxi bearing No. KA-25-2699. Five other persons also accompanied the accused. He did not know their names. A1 beat his daughter with a stick on her right leg. On seeing the neighbours, the accused ran away in their taxi. On the same day night at 12.00 mid night he gave a report to the police. There is nothing in the cross-examination of P.W.1 which could discredit his evidence. P.W.2 is Indrani who is the daughter of P.W.1 and wife of A1. She also corroborated what had been stated by P.W.1. P.W.3 is the wife of P.W.1 and P.W.4 is the son of P.W.1. They also corroborated the evidence of PW 1. P.W.5 is the doctor who examined P.W.4 and found mild swelling over the left ring finger bone, and according to the doctor, the injury was grievous in nature caused by blunt force. He exhibited Ex.P3 as x-ray film and Ex.P2 as his certificate.