ORDER
1. The petitioners are accused Nos. 1 and 3 respectively in C.C. No. 71 of 1979 on the file of the J.M.F.C. Bagepalli. They were tried for an offence punishable under Section 324, I.P.C. along with accused No. 2 on the allegation that on 8-3-1977 at about 2 p.m. when P.W. 1 objected to their plucking lime fruits from the tree in the backyard of his house at Pethapalya, they assaulted him with a club and wooden reaper respectively and caused him simple hurt.
2. The defence of the accused was one of total denial.
3. Accepting the prosecution evidence, the learned Magistrate convicted them under Section 324, I.P.C. and sentenced them to pay a fine of Rs. 100/- and in default to suffer simple imprisonment for 15 days. Their revision against the said conviction and sentence was dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge, Kolar. Hence, they have filed this petition under Section 482, Cr.P.C. against the said conviction and sentence.
4. The petitioners are the father-in-law and brother-in-law of P.W. 1. From the evidence of Dr. Yunivenkatappa (P.W. 4) it is clear that P.W. 1, when examined by him within a few minutes after the incident, has sustained three injuries on his head. Ex. P-3 is the medical certificate regarding the same issued by P.W. 4. P.W. 1 has stated that accused Nos. 1 and 3 assaulted him with a club (M.O. 1) and a wooden reaper (M.O. 2) respectively on his head. Mastan Sab (P.W. 2) has stated that he saw the accused and P.W. 1 quarrelling in their backyard and P.W. 1 had sustained bleeding injuries on his head. Although not narrated that he saw accused Nos. 1 and 3 assaulting P.W. 1, his evidence lends support to the evidence of P.W. 1. P.W. 1 has also given the complaint immediately and has disclosed the names of the accused as the persons who are responsible for the injuries before P.W. 4. The said evidence has been accepted by the two courts below and I see no reason to disagree with them. M.Os. 1 and 2 can be said to be deadly weapons so they are likely to cause death if used as weapons. Therefore, the conviction of the petitioners for an offence punishable under Section 324, I.P.C. is proper. Looking to the nature of the injuries sustained by P.W. 1 and the relationship of the accused with him the sentence of fine of Rs. 100/- imposed on the accused is also proper. There is no ground for interfering with the said conviction and sentence in the exercise of the inherent powers of this Court under Section 482, Cr.P.C.
5. In the result, the petition is dismissed.
6. Petition dismissed.