The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of trustworthy and reliable evidence, including that of interested witnesses, in establishing guilt in criminal cases. The judgment also emphasizes the need for careful scrutiny of evidence and the consideration of circumstances when evaluating the reasonableness of procedural aspects, such as the delay in lodging the FIR.

JUDGMENT

Hanchate Sanjeevkumar, J. - The present appeal is preferred calling in question the judgment of conviction and order on sentence dated 16.03.2013 passed in Sessions Case No.130/2010 by IIAddl. Sessions Judge, Bijapur.

2. In a nutshell the facts of the case are as follows:

The PW.1/complainant is cousin of accused Nos.1 and 2/appellants and complainant/PW.1 is the brother of PW.5/injured. There was ancestral land, which is owned by the father of the accused and there was no partition in the family property. That on 10.06.2010 at about night 9:00 p.m. near the mutton shop of PW.9, situated near bus stand at Kakhandaki village, when PW.5/injured was there and therein accused Nos.1 and 2 have come on motorcycle and PW.5 had asked the accused for giving partition in the land thereby accused Nos.1 and 2 have got enraged themselves and abused PW.5 in filthy language and thrown him on the ground and in furtherance of common intention to commit murder of PW.5, accused No.1 took up a stone and assaulted on the head of PW.5 and accused No.2 kicked him to his testicles and thus caused grievous injuries and thus, attempted to commit the murder. Immediately after hearing the same, PW.1 who is brother of PW.5 and others have taken PW.5/injured to the hospital in the Jeep of PW.8 for medical treatment. On the next day i.e. on 11.06.2010 PW.1 has lodged the complaint before the police and crime is registered for the offence punishable under Section 324, 504, 307 r/w section 34 of IPC. After receipt of the complaint, PW.10 has conducted investigation and filed charge sheet for the offence punishable under Sections 324, 504 and 307 read with Section 34 of IPC. Since one of the offences is exclusively triable by the Sessions Court, therefore, learned Magistrate after taking cognizance had committed case to the Court of Sessions. The Sessions Court has framed the charge against the accused for the offence punishable under Sections 307, 326, 324 and 504 read with Section 34 of IPC. The accused pleaded not guilty and claims to be tried. Therefore, the learned Sessions Judge had proceeded with the trial.

3. The prosecution in order to prove the guilt of the accused has examined in all 10 witnesses as PWs.1 to 10 and got marked documents as Exs.P1 to P11 and Material Objects at Mos.1 and 2. The accused were examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., the accused did not lead any defence evidence and it is totally denial of the case by the accused.

4. The learned Sessions Judge after trial and hearing the case had acquitted the appellants/accused Nos.1 and 2 for the offences punishable under Sections 307 and 504 read with Section 34 of IPC, but convicted the appellants for the offence punishable under Sections 324 and 326 read with Section 34 of IPC and passed order on sentence to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 3 years with fine of Rs.3,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 326 read with Section 34 of IPC and for the offence under Section 324 read with Section 34 of IPC, it was ordered to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year.

5. Challenging the judgment of conviction and order on sentence as above stated, accused Nos.1 and 2 have preferred the present appeal by raising various grounds which are briefly stated below:

The PW.2/Doctor who treated PW.5 found in x-ray report that there is no fracture in the skull as well as on chest and CT scan report was obtained from the out side but the prosecution has failed to produce the CT scan report and led the evidence of Doctor who was issued the CT scan report. Therefore, conviction under Section 326 r/w Section 34 of IPC is not correct.

The prosecution has not produced x-ray report and CT scan report to ascertain the alleged fractures and therefore, in absence of this evidence conviction under Section 326 r/w Section 34 of IPC cannot be made.

Further the witnesses are highly interested witnesses and their evidences are found to be exaggerated one and in this learned Se