The main legal point established in the judgment is the reliance on reliable and consistent evidence, particularly the consistency of the witness's testimony with the F.I.R. and medical evidence, in determining the guilt of the accused.

A.M. Dhavale, J.

The State has preferred this appeal against the judgment delivered by II Additional Sessions Judge, Dhule on 15.6.2002 in Sessions Case No. 100/2001, whereby respondents No. 1 to 11 were acquitted of the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 447, 307 read with Section 149 and 120 (B) of the Indian Penal Code.

2. The facts relevant for deciding this appeal may be stated as follows :

P.W. 2 Pandurang is the injured witness and the informant. On 9.10.2000, at about 7.15 p.m., he was brought to Civil Hospital, Dhule in injured condition. P.W. 14 Head Constable from Dhule police station visited the hospital and recorded his statement in the form of dying declaration. He has deposed that on receiving the message, he visited the hospital, obtained certificate of Medical Officer that the patient was stable to give the statement and recorded the statement as per say of Pandurang. It is at Exh. 49. He has registered the F.I.R. and handed over the investigation to A.P.I. P.W. 13 Patil. That time, P.W. 2 Pandurang disclosed that he and his brother Bhausaheb-P.W. 7 were having separate agricultural lands in Shirud hamlet, near Dhamangaon road at Shirud. Accused No. 6 Bhaskar was having his agricultural land near their lands. He was trying to create a right of cart way through the field of P.W. 7 Bhausaheb. He was obstructed by P.W. 7 Bhausaheb and P.W. 2 Pandurang. Hence, accused No. 6 Bhaskar had ill-feeling for them. On 9.10.2000 at about 4.00 p.m., P.W. 2 Pandurang was grazing his bulls in his field. That time, all the eleven accused had arranged a meals party in the field of Bhausaheb. That time, accused No. 6 Bhaskar came to him and accosted him, as to why he and his brother were obstructing his right of cart way. After verbal exchange and abusing accused No. 6 Bhaskar brought all the accused to his field. Accused No. 2 Dinesh inflicted blow of an axe on the skull of P.W.2 Pandurang. Accused No. 3 Gotu and accused No. 1 Deelip followed it with blows of the axe on both the legs below the knee. Accused No. 4 Rajendra, accused No. 8 Pintya and accused No. 6 Bhaskar started assaulting P.W.2 Pandurang with stones on his abdomen, arm and back and the rest of the accused assaulted him with fist and kick blows and abused him in filthy language and intimidated him with threats of killing. The incident was witnessed by P.W.8 Ananda, P.W.9 Subhash, P.W.10 Bharat and P.W.11 Laxman. They had rescued him and Laxman and one Bapu had taken him in a bullock-cart to his house. His son Pravin brought him to the hospital. The statement was read over to him and thereafter he admitted it to be correct and signed it and thereafter the same was registered as F.I.R. and crime was registered at C.R.No. 351/2000. P.W.13 A.P.I. Prakash Patil carried out investigation in the case. He got the statement of P.W.2 Pandurang recorded through Executive Magistrate. He drew spot panchnama and collected blood mixed soil and blood stained leaves, one stick and one handkerchief from the spot. All the accused were arrested on the same day. During custody, accused Nos. 1, 2 and 3 made voluntary statement and discovered the axes used as weapon of offence which were seized by drawing memorandum and panchnama. He recorded statements of material witnesses, collected medical evidence, seized muddemal articles. He also seized clothes of the injured witness. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Dhule. In due course, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions. The learned Additional Sessions Judge framed charge at Exh.32. The accused pleaded not guilty. Prosecution examined 13 witnesses. The learned Additional Sessions Judge did not find the evidence fully convincing and reliable. Hence, the accused were acquitted. Hence this appeal.

3. During the pendency of appeal, respondent No. 7-Dash