IMPORTANT POINT
The court clarified that minor discrepancies in witness testimonies do not undermine their credibility, and the absence of a specific charge does not invalidate a trial.

JUDGMENT :

1. This case is an example of the disrespect to the Court and its orders, even by the counsels who have a long standing practice. On 09.08.2024, the counsel for the petitioner had sought adjournment. Since the Court had already granted him the last opportunity before that date, the Court granted him an opportunity to advance the arguments subject to the cost of Rs.5,000/- to be deposited in this Court. The matter was listed today. It was surprising that Advocate Mr. U.B. Bondar and Mr. V.V. Patil who appear to have a good standing practice did not pay heed to the Courts order and again remained absent when the matter was called. He did not deposit the cost of Rs. 5,000/-. Such conduct of the lawyers having good standing practice would not pass a good message to the newly entered lawyer. If the Court does not take stringent action against such a conduct, it would have been disrespecting the law. Hence, the Sheristedar was directed to contact Advocate Mr. U.B. Bondar on his phone and report his reply. However in the meantime, Advocate Mr. V.V. Patil appeared and made a statement that Mr. Bonder has gone to the funeral of the family member of his friend. He is busy in another matter pending before another Court. The Court expressed displeasure on his reply. The Court informed him that he must argue the matter else stringent action will be taken. He had no brief. The Court was given Court papers to him. Lastly, he prepared with the matter.

2. Heard learned counsel for the injured/petitioner and learned counsel for the accused/respondents.

3. The injured/petitioner has impugned the judgment and order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Udgir passed in Criminal Appeal No.1 of 2003 dated 30.08.2005.

4. The petitioner had lodged the report against the respondents alleging that on 25.11.1997 at about 08.30 am, he went to bring milk near Chawle Complex. When he was in front of the Chawle Complex, both accused came in front of him and asked what money they have to pay him. He told that they had taken a hand loan of Rs.12,000/- The accused Vithal was holding iron rod. He assaulted him on his head and accused Shankar assaulted him with knife and stick on his forehead, hand and back. He fell down. Then the accused flee away. Many people were gathered on the spot. His maternal brother took him to the police station and police referred him to the hospital. He was under treatment. His report was recorded in the hospital under his signature.

5. The prosecution had examined the injured. His younger brother and nephew were the eyewitnesses to the incident. To corroborate the incident, the prosecution examined the medical officer who had examined the injured immediately after the incident. The prosecution also examined the panch witnesses. However, they did not support the prosecution. The investigation officer proved all panchnamas.

6. Appreciating the evidence, the learned Trial Court held the respondent/accused guilty for the offence punishable under Section 324 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

7. The respondent had preferred an appeal before the Additional Sessions Judge, Udgir. The learned Additional Sessions Judge reversed the judgment of the Trial Court and acquitted them of the above offences.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the learned Additional Sessions Judge has not appreciated the evidence correctly and given the findings that they had earlier enmity, had no written document of hand loan, the knife was not recovered, there were discrepancies in the period of happening the incident, Joshi Hospital near the spot of the incident was absent in the spot panchanama comparing the size of the iron rod does not match with injuries and there were ten injuries on the person of the complainant, if such weapon was used for assault, it would likely to cause death of the person. He has referred to the grounds raised in the revision memo and vehemently pressed into service the grounds of objection against the