It is against this order that Ganesha has preferred this special leave petition.
355 of 2006, acquitted them of all the charges.
It was alleged that Ganesha, the appellant herein assaulted the informant with a Badige stick which caused injury near his left eye.
While doing so, the High Court observed as follows In my view, the aforesaid reasoning of the trial companyrt is totally perverse and companytrary to the evidence on record.
The rest of the prosecution story is number being narrated as the accused who have allegedly participated in that have been acquitted and we are number companycerned with that in the present appeal.
The High Court found Maremma PW 4 and Hussainappa PW 6 to be the independent eye witnesses and reliable.
The High Court relied on the evidence of Sharanappa, the informant PW 2 , Maremma PW 4 , Sujatha PW 5 and Hussainappa PW 6 , who claimed to be the eye witnesses of the occurrence.
However, in revision, the High Court re appraised the evidence and found the reasoning assigned by the trial companyrt to be totally perverse and companytrary to the evidence on record.
147 of 2007 and the High Court, by the impugned judgment and order dated 5th of August, 2008 maintained the order of acquittal of all accused persons, excepting accused number 3, Ganesha who has been held guilty for the offence punishable under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months and also to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/ , and in default of payment of fine, to undergo further simple imprisonment for a period of three months.
The trial companyrt, on appraisal of the evidence, came to the companyclusion that the prosecution has number been able to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt and, accordingly, acquitted all the accused.
Leave granted.
Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Yadgiri Taluk, Gulbarga District, Karnataka, by its judgment and order dated 14th of September, 2006 passed in CC No.
Aggrieved by the aforesaid, the informant preferred Criminal Revision Petition No.
CHANDRAMAULI KR.
The prosecution was set in motion on the basis of a report given by the informant, Sharanappa, inter alia, alleging that he made a protest when he saw the accused persons grazing their cattle in his land and thereby damaging the mulberry crop.
PRASAD, J. Petitioner, besides three other accused, was put on trial for offence under Section 341, 323, 324 and 504 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
