The main legal point established in the judgment is the reliance on credible evidence, including eye witnesses and medical evidence, to uphold the conviction, while also considering mitigating circumstances in determining the sentence.

Mridula Bhatkar, J.

1. This Appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 12th April, 2007 passed by the learned Principal District & Sessions Judge, Solapur in Sessions Case No. 173 of 2006 by which the appellants/accused were convicted for the offences punishable under section 326 r/w. 34 of Indian Penal Code to suffer R.I. for one year and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default to suffer S.I. for three months; and also for the offences punishable under section 323 r/w. 34 of Indian Penal Code they were sentenced to suffer S.I. for one day, i.e., till rising of the Court and to pay fine of Rs. 500/-, in default to suffer further S.I. for 8 days.

2. This Appeal is triable by the Single Judge, however, while hearing group of four Appeals bearing Nos. 415 of 2007, 434 of 2007, 611 of 2007 and 1174 of 2007, we are informed that this Appeal is filed against the order of conviction in a cross case which was lodged out of the same incident of assault. As the facts in all these Appeals are same and it was out of cross case, we felt it appropriate to call the record and also to dispose of this Appeal.

3. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the incident of assault has taken place on 23rd October, 2005 between 8.00 a.m. to 8.30 a.m. at Village Dhas-Pimpalgaon. In the village, there was election of Village Panchayat. The appellants/accused belonged to Rashtravadi party and the complainant and injured belonged to other political party, namely, Shiv sena. In this case, one Chandrakant Kerba Dhas PW-6 is a complainant. He along with other injured persons was distributing voters slip near the polling booth and at that time, the appellants/accused armed with weapons like sticks, axe, sword arrived there and they assaulted the complainant Chandrakant and other persons and then there was a scuffle. Chandrakant and other persons were admitted to the Shushrusha hospital. Pursuant to the information given by Chandrakant to the police, an offence was registered at C.R. No. 80 of 2005 with the Pangri Police Station. The police carried out spot panchnama, recorded statements of the witnesses, collected injury certificates of the injured and filed charge sheet after completion of the investigation. The case was committed to the Sessions Court. The charge was framed by the learned Sessions Judge. The accused pleaded not guilty. The learned Judge tried total 7 accused persons, out of which (original accused no. 1) Balu Shivdas Dhas, (original accused no. 5) Santosh Dnyaneshwar Chipde, (original accused no. 6) Shivaji Uttareshwar Lomte and (original accused no. 7) Rangnath Shamrao Dhas were convicted and others were acquitted.

4. The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that this is a false case lodged against the appellants/accused. The accused persons are falsely implicated by the complainant Chandrakant Dhas and other witnesses only for the reason that they belonged to other political party. He submitted that the learned trial Judge has erred in believing these witnesses. PW-2 panch Waman Sadashiv Kakde on the point of recovery at the instance of accused Santosh Chipde did not support the prosecution. He further submitted that the injuries sustained to PW-6 Chandrakant and PW-8 Vithal Dhas are not of severe nature but they are simple. The fracture sustained to Chandrakant Dhas was not due to the assault by the accused persons. He submitted that the appellants were not aggressors. They had defended themselves when the complainant and the witnesses attacked on them. He submitted that the judgment of the learned trial Judge hence is to be set aside and the Appeal be allowed.

5. Learned APP submitted that there are eye witnesses and their evidence is cogent and consistent and the conviction in this case is justified.

6. In this case, the prosecution has examined 10 witnesses. PW-4 Bhanudas Prabhu Waghmode, PW-5 Hanmant Murlidhar Pawar and PW-8 Vithal Dhas are the eye witnesses other than the complainant PW-6 Chandrakant