The importance of corroboration of evidence, the possibility of false implication, and the principle of non-interference in the decision of the lower court when two views are possible.

1. The proceeding is filed to challenge the judgment and order of acquittal given in favour of the present respondents by learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Pathardi, District Ahmednagar. The respondents are acquitted of the offences punishable under sections 325, 323, 504, 506 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code in a police case. Both the sides are heard.

2. Present petitioner lives in a house constructed in the field. Adjacent to the field of the petitioner there is field of the respondents. Beyond the field of the respondents there is the field of brother-in-law of the petitioner namely Karbhari. It is the case of the petitioner that she goes to the field of Karbhari to fetch drinking water as there is bore well in the said field.

3. The incident in question took place on 5-7-2002. According to the petitioner, at about 11.00 a.m. when she was proceeding towards the field of Karbhari to start the motor installed on the bore well and when she was there on common bandh situated between the land of the petitioner and the land of the respondents, respondent Devidas intercepted her and said that she should not enter their field. Quarrel started. It is the case of the petitioner that during quarrel other respondents who were working there and who are relatives of Devidas came there and started assaulting her with fist blow and kicks. It is the case that during the incident Devidas gave blow of bicycle chain on her back. It is her case that her brother-in-law Karbhari and wife of brother-in-law namely Rakhamabai came there to rescue her but they were also assaulted by the respondents-accused. She gave report to police on the same day and the crime came to be registered at 14.45 hours for the aforesaid offences. The complainant was referred to Government Hospital for medical examination and she was examined there. The doctor noticed that there was chip fracture of C-7 vertebra and there was tenderness at that place over back. Two simple injuries were also found. X-ray was taken and MLC was issued by Dr. Sandip who was working as Medical Officer in Civil Hospital Ahmednagar. Statements of aforesaid two relatives of the petitioner came to be recorded and after completion of the investigation charge sheet came to be filed for aforesaid offences.

4. Charge was framed for the aforesaid offences and plea was recorded. All the accused pleaded not guilty and they took the defence of total denial. The prosecution examined in all six witnesses. The trial Court has held that all the prosecution witnesses which include eye witnesses and the doctor are interested witnesses. The doctor is close relative of the present petitioner. The trial Court has held that in view of the admission given by the doctor that the injury of chip fracture of vertebra cannot be caused by chain of bicycle witnesses cannot be believed and there is clear possibility that there is exaggeration and false implication.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner, original complainant, submitted that when there is corroboration of medical evidence to the evidence of the present petitioner and when there was no reason for the present petitioner to falsely implicate the accused persons, the trial Court ought to have given conviction on the basis of the aforesaid evidence.

6. This Court has carefully gone through the oral evidence and also the document like spot panchnama and MLC. There is evidence of petitioner Sindhubai (PW1), Rakhamabai (PW 3) as a direct evidence. The spot panchnama is proved in the evidence of Shivaji Ware (PW 2) and this evidence shows that the incident took place in the field of the respondents as the spot was inside the field and was situated at a distance of 7 feet from common bandh. Though one bicycle chain is shown to be recovered from the field of the accused persons, that spot is situated near the well of the accused persons. The spot is situated in the vicinity of the said well. These circumstances create probability that the complainant h