JUDGMENT

BHARAT P.DESHPANDE, J. - Admit. Heard finally by the consent of the learned counsel for the respective parties.

2. This appeal is filed by the original complainant whereby challenging acquittal of respondent Nos.2 to 10 (original accused Nos.1 to 9) in Sessions Case No.09/2015, vide judgment dtd. 5/5/2018, passed by Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Yavatmal.

3. The appellant/complainant set the law in motion by filing complaint on 13/10/2013 at Police Station Babhulgaon, District - Yavatmal, on the allegations that all the accused persons formed unlawful assembly and in furtherance of common object, assaulted her father-in-law (Natthuji), brother-in-law (Gunwant) and other relatives with the help of sticks, iron rods and spear and attempted to commit murder in that assault, the family members sustained bleeding injuries. The JCB machine brought for the purpose of clearing water canal was also damaged.

4. Babhulgaon Police Station registered the offence vide Crime No.146/2013, for the offences punishable under Ss. 307, 143, 147, 148, 149, 324, 294, 323, 427 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code. After investigation, charge-sheet was filed before the learned Magistrate and vide order dtd. 20/12/2014, the matter was committed the Court of Sessions at Yavatmal. On appearance of the accused persons, charges were framed against them for the offences mentioned in the charge-sheet. Prosecution in all examined 9 witnesses during the trial. The statement of all accused persons under Sec. 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, were recorded in which, it is their specific case of false accusations/implications. No witness in defence was examined.

5. The learned Sessions Court after considering the submissions and assessing the evidence brought on record observed that prosecution has miserably failed to first of all prove that accused Nos.1 to 9 formed unlawful assembly and assaulted the family members of the complainant with sticks, iron rods and spear etc., thereby causing injuries to them. Accordingly, all the accused persons were acquitted for the said offences mentioned in the charge-sheet, which has been challenged by the original complainant on various grounds as mentioned in the memo of appeal.

6. We have heard at length, Ms. Gayatri Dive, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, Shri Atharva Manohar, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.2 to 10 (original accused persons) and Mr. V.A. Thakare, learned APP appearing for respondent No.1.

7. Ms. Dive, learned counsel appearing for appellant vehemently argued that injuries caused to family members of the complainant clearly goes to show that they were brutally attacked by the accused persons with the help of sticks, iron rods, spear and since the complainant is an eye witness to the incident, she lodged the report with the police. The medical evidence clearly supports the ocular evidence of the witnesses, except minor variations. The learned counsel would submit that in a mob attack, it is quite difficult for the complainant or even the injured witnesses to tell exact weapons used by each of the accused persons qua the victim and others. She would submit that the learned trial Court committed error by observing that there is a discrepancy in the ocular evidence with that of medical evidence. In this respect, she invited our attention to the depositions of the injured witnesses, namely, PW 2, PW 4, PW 6 and PW 7 with that of a medical evidence and would submit that minor discrepancies ought to have been ignored by the learned trial Court.

8. Learned counsel would further submits that accused persons were against the complainant and her family members and without any provocation they gathered at the spot, armed with deadly weapons and started assaulting the victims. She would further submit that the depositions of the victims has to be appreciated on higher pedestal, as there is no possibility of falsely implicating others than the real culprit. In this regard, she invited our a