The importance of medical evidence and consistent witness testimony in establishing guilt, and the consideration of the background and trifle cause of the quarrel in reaching a decision.

JUDGMENT

G. A. Sanap, J. - Heard.

2. RULE. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of learned Advocates for the parties.

3. In this revision application, the challenge is to the Judgment and order, dated 16.03.2020, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Achalpur, whereby the learned Judge dismissed the criminal appeal filed by the applicant and maintained the Judgment and order of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Dharni. Learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Dharni had convicted the applicant for the offence under Section 325 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- (Rs. One Thousand Only). Learned Additional Sessions Judge modified the order of sentence and reduced the substantive sentence from two years to one year and increased the fine amount from Rs.1000/- (Rs. One Thousand Only) to Rs.3000/- (Rs. Three Thousand Only).

4. In this judgment, for the purpose of convenience, the parties would be referred by their nomenclature in the appeal. The informant (PW-1) is the brother of injured Surajlal (PW-3). On the basis of the report of the informant (PW-1), the crime was registered against two accused namely, Balaram and Narendra. During pendency of the appeal against conviction, accused-Narendra died and therefore, the prosecution against him stood abated. It is the case of the prosecution that, on 31.12.2009, accused-Narendra had taken bicycle of Surajlal (PW-3). When he brought back the bicycle, Surajlal found that its pedal was broken. In the evening, at about 6:00 p.m., Surajlal requested accused-Narendra to repair the bicycle. Therefore, accused-Narendra and Balaram, therefore, beat Surajlal with stick. Surajlal sustained injury on his hand and on his back. The matter was reported to Dharni Police Station. The police registered the crime bearing No. 14 of 2010. PW-6 conducted the investigation. The stick was seized during the course of the investigation. Injured Surajlal (PW- 3) was sent to Civil Hospital, Amravati for treatment. He was admitted in the said Hospital. The X-ray of the injuries sustained by him shown the fracture. After completion of the investigation, the charge-sheet came to be filed. The prosecution examined six witnesses. Learned Magistrate found the evidence of the prosecution witnesses reliable and as such, convicted and sentenced accused-Balaram, as above. Learned Magistrate, however, granted benefit of provisions of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 (For short ' the Act of 1958') to accused-Narendra with appropriate conditions.

5. Being aggrieved by this Judgment and order, the accused persons preferred an appeal in the Sessions Court, Achalpur. Learned Additional Sessions Judge partly allowed the appeal and modified the sentence, as above. Being aggrieved by this Judgment and order the accused-Balaram is before this Court.

6. I have heard Mr. S. I. Ghatte, learned Advocate for the accused/applicant and Mr H. D. Dubey, learned APP for the State. Perused the record and proceedings.

7. The gist of the submissions of the learned Advocate for the accused/applicant is as under:

There was an inordinate delay in lodging the FIR. There is no explanation for lodging the FIR of the incident dated 31.12.2009 on 14.01.2010. The delay has not been properly explained. The investigation is full of defects and lacunae. The recovery of the stick is doubtful. The overall investigation is tainted. The evidence of the witnesses, examined by the prosecution, is not credible and believable. There are omissions, contradictions and inconsistencies in their evidence. The medical Certificate, to establish the fracture injury, has not been proved. Learned Additional Sessions Judge has committed error on the face of record. There is failure to appreciate the evidence and as such, the order is perverse. Learned Judge has not extended the benefit of Section 4 of the Act of 1958 to the accused without recording any