1. The present petitioners, as accused No. 1, accused No. 2 and accused No. 3 respectively, were tried by the Court of the Senior Civil Judge and J.M.F.C., at Sira, (hereinafter for brevity referred to as "the Trial Court") in C.C. No. 655/2009, for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 323, 504 and 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, (hereinafter for brevity referred to as "the IPC") and were convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 323 and 504 read with Section 34 of the said offences, by its judgment of conviction and order on sentence dated 06-07-2012.

Aggrieved by the same, all the accused persons preferred a Criminal Appeal in the Court of the learned Fast Track Court-II at Tumkur, (hereinafter for brevity referred to as the "Sessions Judge's Court") in Criminal Appeal No. 116/2012.

The learned Sessions Judge's Court in its order dated 09-11-2012 dismissed the appeal filed by all the accused persons and confirmed the judgment of the Trial Court in C.C. No. 655/2009. It is challenging the judgments passed by both the Trial Court as well the Sessions Judge's Court, all the accused have preferred the present revision petition.

2. The summary of the case of the prosecution as could be gathered from the charge sheet filed by the complainant Police is that, the accused No. 1, being the husband of the complainant-Smt. Nagendramma (PW-1/CW-1) and accused No. 2 and accused No. 3, being the parents of accused No. 1, as such, father-in-law and mother-in-law respectively of the said complainant, were subjecting the complainant to cruelty and on the date 30-04-2009, all the three of them, in furtherance of their common intention, assaulted PW-1(CW-1)-Smt. Nagendramma with their hands and legs, causing hurt to her and also abused her in filthy language and thus have committed the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 323, 504, and 506 read with Section 34 of the IPC.

3. In order to prove the alleged guilt against the accused persons, the prosecution got examined in all nine witnesses from PW-1 to PW-9 and got marked documents from Exs.P-1 to P-5(a). Neither any witness was examined nor any documents were marked as Exhibits from the side of the accused persons.

4. After hearing both side, the Trial Court by its impugned judgment of conviction and order on sentence dated 06-07-2012 convicted the accused persons for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 323, 504 read with Section 34 of the IPC and sentenced them accordingly. As observed above, all the accused persons preferred an appeal before the learned Sessions Judge's Court, which after hearing both side, dismissed the appeal, confirming the judgment of conviction and order on sentence passed by the Trial Court. It is challenging the judgments of both the Trial Court as well the Sessions Judge's Court, all the accused persons are before this Court, in the present revision petition.

5. The respondent-State is being represented by the learned High Court Government Pleader.

6. Learned counsel for the revision petitioners (accused persons) and learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent/complainant are appearing physically before the Court.

7. The Trial Court and the Sessions Judge's Court's records were called for and the same are placed before this Court.

8. Heard the arguments from both side. Perused the materials placed before this Court including the Trial Court and Sessions Judge's Court's records.

9. For the sake of convenience, the parties would be henceforth referred to as per their rankings before the Trial Court.

10. After hearing the learned counsels for the parties, the only point that arise for my consideration in this revision petition is:

"Whether the impugned judgment of conviction and order on sentence passed by the Senior Civil Judge and J.M.F.C. at Sira in C.C. No. 655/2009, which was further confirmed by the Fast Track Court-II at Tumkur, in Criminal Appeal No. 116/2012, warrants any interference at the hands of this Court"

11. Among the nine witnesses examined by the prosecution, PW-1 (CW-1)-Smt. Nagendramma is the complainant. It is not in dispute that, the complainant was married to accused No. 1 on the date 25-02-2008 and that the accused No. 2 and accused No. 3 are the parents of accused No. 1.

The complainant (PW-1), in her evidence, has stated that, her husband i.e. accused No. 1, who has been working as a Bus Conductor in Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation (KSRTC), Sira Depot, has not been coming to home regularly for several days continuously. When questioned by her, he used to give a vague answer and ignored her. Further he used to say that whenever he feels like coming, he will come, otherwise he would not. According to her, even he was not providing the provisions and other essentials to the home, which she had to arrange on her own.

The complainant (PW-1) has further stated in her evidence that, her in-laws i.e. accused No. 2 and accused No. 3 were also taking the side of their son and used to say that he is a son and that he can do anything. They too used to ask her to take care of herself with the assistance of her parental home.

The witness (PW-1) has further stated that, when things were going on like this, on the date 30-04-2009, her husband, joined by his parents, i.e. accused No. 2 and accused No. 3, quarrelled with her and abused her in filthy language as (bastard, prostitute) and after holding her tuft, assaulted her with their hands and legs and caused hurt to her. The neighbours came and rescued her.

The witness (PW-1)has further stated that, the accused also threatened her that, in case if she reveals the incident to anyone they would burn her by pouring kerosene upon her and litting fire to it.

PW-1 also stated that after the incident she telephoned to her elder brother who came to her house and took her on the next day morning to the Government Hospital at Sira and got her medically treated.

The complainant also stated that though her brother attempted to hold a Panchayat to settle the matter, the accused did not respond to the same. She stated that since her in-laws also did not accede to her request to advise her husband, she had to lodge the complaint with some delay.

Stating so, the witness has identified the complaint lodged by her at Ex.P-1. She also stated that after registering the complaint lodged by her, the Police visited the spot as shown by her and drew the scene of offence panchanama as per Ex.P-2. Stating that, she has produced before the Police two photographs of her marriage and her wedding card, she has identified those two documents at Exs.P-3 and P-4 respectively.

12. PW-2 (CW-2)-Rajanna, who is admittedly the elder brother of PW-1 (complainant) has also supported the case of the complainant (PW-1). He has stated that about three to four months after her marriage, though his sister was taken care of well by the accused persons, however, thereafter they started subjecting her to harassment continuously. They used to assault her and scold her regularly. The accused No. 1 was also taking least care of his wife and it is only now and then he used to visit his house and rest of the time, he used to stay away from the house.

The witness (PW-2) further stated that about the incident dated 30-04-2009, it was his sister i.e. PW-1 who revealed the same before him, as such, he came to know that on the said night, all the accused persons assaulted his sister apart from abusing her in filthy language.

13. The evidence of PW-3 (CW-3)-Eramallanna, the father of PW-1 is also in consonance with the evidence of PW-2. He too has stated that the accused were not treating his daughter Nagendramma cordially and they always used to subject her to harassment and ill-treatment, both physically and mentally. The witness further stated that the accused No. 1 also has not been taking care of his wife and not providing any provision for preparing food at home, on the other hand all the accused used to abuse the complainant in filthy language.

The witness (PW-3) further stated that when he questioned the parents of accused No. 1, i.e. accused No. 2 and accused No. 3 of their act, they stated that if their daughter-in-law i.e. PW-1 is willing she can stay there otherwise she can return to her parents house. It is in that regard, about three to four times, a Panchayat was held.

About the incident dated 30-04-2009, the witness has stated that the knowledge about the said incident was given to him by none else than his daughter Nagendramma (PW-1) and through her, he came to know that on the said night, all the three accused apart from abusing his daughter (PW-1) in filthy language as (prostitute, bastard, etc), have also assaulted her physically. He further stated that they have threatened his daughter that in case if she reveals about the incident to anyone, they would burn her alive by pouring kerosene.

14. PW-4 (CW-7)-Lingaiah, PW6 (CW-5)-Anantappa, PW-7 (CW-9)-Nataraja and PW-8 (CW-6)-Srinivasa, have, in their evidence stated that, since it was complained to them that, the accused persons were subjecting PW-1 to ill-treatment constantly, at the instance of the father of the complainant, a Panchayat was held. They attempted to advise the parents of the accused No. 1 to take care of PW-1 well.

About the incident dated 30-04-2009, though PW-4 and PW-8 have stated that PW-1 i.e. the complainant was assaulted by the accused persons on that night in her house, however, even according to them i.e. (PW-4) and PW-8, their knowledge about the said incident was through PW-3 the father of the complainant. Similarly the knowledge about the alleged incident dated 30-04-2009 about which, even PW-6 also has stated, is based upon what he heard from PW-3-the father of the complainant.

15. PW-5 (CW-8)-Ranganathappa, who claims to be the landlord of the house where accused No. 1 and the complainant were said to be residing as a tenant/lessee has also stated that, now and then he used to hear the quarrel noise from the house where accused No. 1 was residing with his wife. On the date of the incident, hearing the noise of quarrel in a high pitch, he went and saw that all the three accused were assaulting the complainant with their hands and legs and it was him who pacified them and rescued the complainant Nagendramma (PW-1).

The witness (PW-5) has further stated that the parents of accused No. 1 were visiting the house where accused No. 1 and complainant were residing.

16. PW-9 (CW-10)-Sri. Fakrusab K. Nadaf, the Police Sub-Inspector of the complainant Police has stated about he receiving the complaint from the complainant on the date 19-06-2009 as per Ex.P-1 and registering an FIR as per Ex.P-5 against the accused for the alleged offences including Sections 506 and 114 of the IPC and also visiting the scene of offence and drawing a spot panchanama as per Ex.P-2 and collecting the marriage photograph of the complainant at Ex.P-3 and wedding invitation card at Ex.P-4 as produced by the complainant (PW-1).

The witness has further stated that he recorded the statements of the relevant witnesses in this matter and after completing the investigation has filed the charge sheet against the accused persons.

17. In the light of the above, it was the first contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that, even if the evidence of the prosecution witnesses is taken at their face value, still, the offence under Section 498A of the IPC is not made out.

18. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent-State submitted that the very evidence of PW-1, PW-2 and PW-3 would go to show that, the complainant was subjected to constant cruelty by the accused.

Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code reads as follows:

"498A. Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty.-Whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine.

Explanation.-For the purpose of this section, "cruelty" means-

(a) any wilful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the woman; or

(b) harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand."

A careful reading of the above Section would got to show that, in order to attract Section 498A of the IPC, there must be any willful conduct by the accused which was of a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the woman; or there must be harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or it must be on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand.

19. Admittedly, it is nobody's case that in the case on hand, there was any demand from any of the accused persons for any valuables either from PW-1 or any one from her parent's house. Admittedly, the allegation of the prosecution witnesses is not for any valuables or demand for any dowry, as such, the cruelty as contemplated under Explanation (b) to Section 498A of the IPC is ruled out.

20. Even though the evidence of PW-1, PW-2, PW-3 and PW-5 is taken as the fact that the accused were abusing the complainant in filthy language and that the accused No. 1 was not regularly visiting his house on the pretext of he having night duty as a Conductor of the KSRTC Bus, still, their evidence is not at all sufficient to hold that there was any willful conduct on the part of those accused or anyone of them which was of such a nature as was likely to cause PW-1 any grave injury or danger to her life, limb or health.

21. Nowhere the complainant (PW-1) has stated that, the act of any of the accused was a constant act of subjecting her to mental cruelty. As such, when there is no specific evidence of subjecting the complainant (PW-1) to cruelty as defined under Section 498A of the IPC, or Explanation (a) or (b) to the said Section, by any of the accused, it can hardly be said that the prosecution has proved the alleged guilt for the offence punishable under Section 498A of the IPC as against any of the accused persons.

22. However, the Trial Court and the Sessions Judge's Court, by merely embracing the evidence of PW-1, PW-2, PW-3 and PW-5 have jumped to the conclusion that PW-1 was subjected to cruelty. Since their analysis of evidence on the said point is now proved to be erroneous and perverse, the impugned judgments holding the accused persons guilty for the offence punishable under Section 498A of the IPC, deserves to be set aside.

23. Apart from Section 498A of the IPC, all the three accused persons have also been convicted by the Trial Court which was further confirmed by the Sessions Judge's Court for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 504 read with Section 34 of the IPC.

24. The learned counsel for the petitioners, in his argument submitted that, when the complainant (PW-1) has stated that, her brother had taken her to Hospital, the prosecution has failed to produce any of the medical records, as such, in the absence of any proof of injury upon the person of the complainant (PW-1), it cannot be believed that she was assaulted by the accused persons.

The learned counsel further submitted that even if it is taken that PW-1 was scolded by the accused persons, still, it was in their house and there was no possibility of any breach of public peace, as such, Section 504 of the IPC is also not attracted.

The learned counsel for the petitioners further stated that, prima facie, the complaint of the complainant itself ought not to have been entertained, since there is enormous delay from the date of alleged crime to the date of registration of the FIR.

Learned counsel further submitted that, admittedly, accused No. 2 and accused No. 3 were residents of a place called Madhugiri, whereas accused No. 1 and complainant (PW-1) were residing at Sira, as such also, the conviction of the accused for the alleged offences would not sustain.

25. Learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent-State in his argument submitted that, it is not always mandatory that any physical visible injury is required to be caused on a person who has been hurt at the act of a voluntary assault by the accused. Further, from the date of the alleged incident, till the date of registration of the FIR, since there was some time gap, the non-obtaining of the medical record is not fatal to the case of the prosecution, on the other hand, the evidence of none else than the injured witness i.e. the complainant (PW-1) being reliable and trustworthy, it is sufficient to hold the accused guilty for the alleged offences.

26. With respect to Section 504 of the IPC, learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent-State submitted that the alleged offence like subjecting a woman i.e. a wife or a daughter-in-law to cruelty or assaulting her would take place within the four walls of the house. In the instant case, though the said incident has taken place within the four walls of the house of accused No. 1 and the complainant, still, the magnitude of the abuse of the complainant by accused persons was to such an extent that, the landlord (PW-5) could also hear the same and rushing to the rescue of the complainant (PW-1) itself would go to show that, there was a provocation of breach of public peace by the act of the accused persons.

27. PW-1 has also stated in her evidence that the accused, apart from subjecting her to constant harassment and depriving of her livelihood, came to her house on the date 30-04-2009 at 9:30 p.m. and quarreled with her. She stated that all the accused abused her in filthy language as "This content is in vernacular language. Kindly email us at info@legitquest.com for this content." (prostitute, bastard, etc) and holding her tuft pushed and pulled her and assaulted her with their hands and legs causing bodily pain to her.

In her cross-examination, though it was elicited that at the time of lodging the complaint, the relationship of the in-laws of PW-1 was cordial with the complainant and which aspect the learned counsel for petitioners enlarged as a point for acquittal of the accused persons, still merely because the in-laws of the accused were said to be in cordial relationship with the complainant as on the date of lodging the complaint by the complainant, the same would not take away the gravity of the incident said to have taken place on the date 30-04-2009.

28. Except making a denial suggestion that no quarrel was made by the accused persons with the complainant, no attempt was made in the cross-examination of PW-1 to either weaken or demolish the evidence of PW-1 about the manner and mode of occurrence of the incident which was said to have taken place in the night of 30-04-2009.

29. The evidence of PW-2 and PW-3 also though speaks about the occurrence of the incident dated 30-04-2009 in the house of accused No. 1, however, admittedly, their knowledge about the same is based upon the information given to them by the complainant (PW-1). However, it cannot be ignored of the fact that according to the complainant (PW-1), immediately after the incident, she had telephoned to her brother i.e. PW-3 and informed him about the incident. Thus, PW-2 and PW-3 are the witnesses who claim to have heard about the incident dated 30-04-2009 from none else than the mouth of the alleged victim (complainant).

30. Though PW-4, PW-6 and PW-8 also have stated about the alleged incident dated 30-04-2009, but admittedly, their knowledge about the same is also based upon the information given to them by PW-2, the father of the complainant.

31. The evidence of PW-5 is crucial in order to decide about the occurrence of the said incident dated 30-04-2009.

It is not in dispute that he is admittedly a landlord, in whose house the accused No. 1 with his wife i.e. PW-1 was staying as a tenant/lessee. The said witness, in his evidence has specifically stated that, on the night of the incident, the time was about 9:30 p.m. In the said incident, the accused No. 1-Rajkumar assaulted his wife i.e. the complainant with his hands and legs. He was also telling her that she should not stay there and go back to her parent's house. He was also abusing her with several filthy words.

The witness further stated that it was him who pacified the quarrel on that night. In that regard, he has also given a statement before the Police. This witness has further identified the scene of offence panchanama at Ex.P-2, stating that the Police have drawn the said panchanama in his presence.

PW-5 maintained the same stand and version even in his cross-examination also.

Though it was attempted to elicit in his (PW-5) cross-examination that the accused No. 2 and accused No. 3 being the residents of different places were not coming regularly but this witness (PW-5) has stated that they were visiting the house of the complainant more than five to six times. Thus, about the incident dated 30-04-2009, it is not just the complainant who has stated about the same, but even the landlord, as a neighbor and lessor(PW-5) has also supported the case of the prosecution.

32. Our Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of LAKSHMAN SINGH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR (NOW JHARKHAND) and connected matters reported in (2021) 9 Supreme Court Cases 191, [LQ/SC/2021/2874 ;] ">(2021) 9 Supreme Court Cases 191, [LQ/SC/2021/2874 ;] [LQ/SC/2021/2874 ;] in sub-paragraphs 9.1 and 9.2 of its judgment, referring to its previous judgment in the case of Abdul Syeed Vs. State of M.P., [(2010) 10 SCC 259] [LQ/SC/2010/975] , was pleased to observe that, the evidence of the injured witnesses is entitled to a great weight and very cogent and convincing grounds are required to discard their evidence. Thus, the deposition of the injured witness should be relied upon unless there are strong grounds for rejection of his evidence on the basis of major contradictions and discrepancies therein. It was further observed by their Lordships that, "being injured witnesses, their presence at the time and place of occurrence cannot be doubted".

33. In the instant case, admittedly, PW-1 was residing with accused No. 1 in a rented house under PW-5 lessor. PW-2, PW-3 and PW-5 have stated that though accused No. 2 and accused No. 3 were residing at a nearby place called Madhugiri, still, they used to visit the house of the complainant frequently, which is of not less than three times a week, as per PW-2, then the presence of accused No. 2 and accused No. 3 on the night of 30-04-2009 along with accused No. 1 in the place of incident cannot be ruled out, on the other hand, it stands proved.

34. Further, PW-1 has stated that accused No. 1, accused No. 2 and accused No. 3 entered her house on that night and started quarrelling with her and then abused her and also caused hurt to her. Thus, it shows that all the three accused persons had a common intention of doing the same overt act against the complainant, if the situation warrants so. Since the alleged quarrel has continued, all the three accused assaulted the complainant by holding her tuft and they have assaulted her with their hands and legs.

35. None of the prosecution witnesses including PW-1 have stated that in the alleged incident of assault by the accused, the complainant Nagendramma has sustained any injuries. Though PW-1 has stated that she was taken to the Hospital by her brother on the next day morning and got her treated at a Government Hospital in Sira, but admittedly no medical documents in that regard have been produced by the prosecution in that regard.

However, suffice it to say that in order to prove an offence punishable under Section 323 of the IPC, it is not always necessary that there must be some external injury upon the person who is said to have been assaulted.

36. Section 323 of the IPC speaks about the punishment for voluntarily causing hurt. The definition of 'hurt' is given under Section 319 of the IPC, as to "whoever causes bodily pain, disease or infirmity to any person is said to cause hurt".

The complainant, both in her complaint at Ex.P-1 and in her evidence as PW-1 has specifically stated that, all the accused persons catching hold of her tuft assaulted with their hands and legs due to which, she suffered bodily pain. Therefore, either a medical evidence of a Doctor or any medical document in that regard was not necessary in the instant case, when the said evidence of PW-1 has not been categorically denied in her cross-examination and that her evidence was proved to be trustworthy and believable.

Further, as analysed above, the said evidence is further corroborated by the evidence of PW-5, the independent witness, as such, the commission of the offence punishable under Section 323 read with Section 34 of the IPC has been established against the accused persons, by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt.

37. It is also the case of the prosecution as well the evidence of PW-1 and PW-5 that the accused apart from assaulting PW-1 with the hands and legs, have also abused her in filthy language as (prostitute, bastard, etc). Even though the said incident is said to have taken place inside the four walls of the house of accused No. 1, however, PW-5-the neighbour and a landlord could able to hear it and he rushed to the spot and saw the accused persons not only assaulting the complainant but also abusing her in filthy language. Thus the act of the accused persons in abusing the complainant has resulted in disturbing the peace to PW-5 a neighbour who was a general public which made him to enter the house of PW-1 at about 9:30 p.m. on the date of the incident and rescue her from the hands of the accused. As such, I do not find any reason to accept the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the evidence of the prosecution witnesses with regard to proving the offence punishable under Section 504 of the IPC is not believable.

Therefore, no perversity or infirmity can be found in the finding of the Trial Court and the Sessions Judge's Court which have held the accused guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 323 and 504 read with Section 34 of the IPC and confirming it respectively.

38. However, considering the nature of the offences and facts and circumstances of the case, more particularly the age of the petitioner No. 2, who is said to be 61 years and petitioner No. 3 being aged 56 years, as on the date of the institution of this petition, and also the gravity of the offences proved against them, I am of the view that the sentence of simple imprisonment ordered by the Trial Court and confirmed by the Sessions Judge's Court for a period of six months against accused No. 1, accused No. 2 and accused No. 3 for the offences punishable under Sections 323 and 504 read with 34 of the IPC deserves modification in the form of reduction.

Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:

ORDER

[i] The Criminal Revision Petition stands allowed-in-part;

[ii] The impugned judgment of conviction and order on sentence dated 06-07-2012, passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate First Class, at Sira, in Criminal Case No. 655/2009, holding the petitioner No. 1, petitioner No. 2 and petitioner No. 3 herein i.e. accused No. 1, accused No. 2 and accused No. 3 respectively guilty for the offence punishable under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, which was further confirmed by the learned Second Fast Track Court at Tumkur, in Criminal Appeal No. 116/2012, dated 09-11-2012, is hereby set aside;

[iii] The accused No. 1 (petitioner No. 1)-Sri. Rajkumar, S/o. Kendappa, Aged about 36 years, Government Official, Residing at Shivanageri, Gollarahalli, Madhugiri Taluk, Tumkur District-572101; Accused No. 2 (petitioner No. 2)-Sri. Kendappa, S/o. Muthanna, Aged about 61 years, Residing at Shivanageri, Gollarahalli, Madhugiri Taluk, Tumkur District-572101; and Accused No. 3 (petitioner No. 3)-Smt. Eramma, W/o. Kendappa, Aged about 56 years, Residing at Shivanageri, Gollarahalli, Madhugiri Taluk, Tumkur District-572101, stand acquitted for the offence punishable under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

[iv] However, the impugned judgment of conviction and order on sentence dated 06-07-2012, passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate First Class, at Sira, in Criminal Case No. 655/2009, holding the petitioner No. 1, petitioner No. 2 and petitioner No. 3 herein i.e. accused No. 1, accused No. 2 and accused No. 3 respectively guilty for the offences punishable under Section 323 and 504 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, which was further confirmed by the learned Second Fast Track Court at Tumkur, in Criminal Appeal No. 116/2012, dated 09-11-2012, stands modified only to the extent of reduction of the period of sentence of imprisonment to be undergone by each of the accused.

Thus, the accused No. 1 (petitioner No. 1)-Sri. Rajkumar, S/o. Kendappa,; Accused No. 2 (petitioner No. 2)-Sri. Kendappa, S/o. Muthanna; and Accused No. 3 (petitioner No. 3)-Smt. Eramma, W/o. Kendappa, are sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months each for the offence punishable under Section 323 read with Section 34 of the IPC;

Further, accused No. 1 (petitioner No. 1)-Sri. Rajkumar, S/o. Kendappa,; Accused No. 2 (petitioner No. 2)-Sri. Kendappa, S/o. Muthanna; and Accused No. 3 (petitioner No. 3)-Smt. Eramma, W/o. Kendappa, are also sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months each for the offence punishable under Section 504 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

[v] All the sentences shall run concurrently.

[vi] The period of sentence, already undergone, if any, by the petitioners in the judicial custody in this matter, be given a set off under Section 428 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

[vi] The accused No. 1 (petitioner No. 1)-Sri. Rajkumar, S/o. Kendappa,; Accused No. 2 (petitioner No. 2)-Sri. Kendappa, S/o. Muthanna; and Accused No. 3 (petitioner No. 3)-Smt. Eramma, W/o. Kendappa, All Residing at Shivanageri, Gollarahalli, Madhugiri Taluk, Tumkur District-572101, are directed to surrender before the learned Senior Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate First Class, Sira, within forty-five (45) days from today and to serve the sentence.

Registry to transmit a copy of this order along with the Trial Court and Sessions Judge's Court's records to the concerned Courts immediately so as to enable the concerned Trial Court to proceed further in the matter to secure the accused persons, in accordance with law, to serve the sentence.