IMPORTANT POINT
Court is required to accept such evidence as is believable, clear, consistent and cogent. Evidence is to be considered as a whole without dissecting bits and parts from it.

JUDGMENT

Sashikanta Mishra, J.—In the present revision, the petitioners question the correctness of judgment dated 13.10.2006 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sambalpur in Criminal Appeal No. 10/3 of 2004/05, whereby, the said appeal was dismissed and, in the process, the judgment dated 26.06.2004 passed by the learned Asst. Sessons Judge, Sambalpur in S.T. Case No. 277/60 of 2002 was confirmed. As per the said judgment, the learned Asst. Sessions Judge convicted the accused petitioners under Sections 323/325/34 of IPC and sentenced them each to undergo R.I. for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-, in default, to undergo R.I. for three months each for the offence under Section 325 of IPC and to undergo R.I. for six months each under Section 323 IPC with both the sentences to run concurrently.

2. The prosecution case, briefly stated, is that on 04.08.2001 while Pabitra Mirdha, the uncle of the informant Gopinath Mirdha, was returning home after attending the call of nature at about 9 a.m., the three accused persons assaulted him by means of axe and lathi on the village road of Khetinali causing severe bleeding injuries on his person. Upon hearing about the incident, the informant rushed to the spot and reported the matter at Charmal Police Station leading to registration of Charmal P.S. Case No. 47/2001 and investigation was taken up. Upon completion of investigation, charge sheet was submitted against the accused persons under Sections 307/323/325/34 of IPC. In course of trial, prosecution examined 13 witnesses, while the defence examined one witness from its side. After scanning the evidence on record particularly, the evidence of the injured, Pabitra Mirdha (P.W.-4), as supported by other witnesses, such as, P.W.-6, P.W.-5, P.W.-7 and P.W.-8 as also the evidence of the doctor, P.W.-10, the trial Court held that though the offence under Section 307 is not made out, yet the prosecution was successful in proving the charge under Sections 323/325/34 of IPC. On such findings, the trial Court convicted the accused petitioners and sentenced them as aforesaid.

Being aggrieved, the petitioners preferred the aforementioned Criminal Appeal, which was disposed of by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sambalpur. It was urged before the lower appellate Court that the trial Court should have disbelieved the prosecution allegation as the independent witnesses did not support its case. Moreover, there is material contradiction in the evidence of the informant as compared to P.Ws. 4, 5 and 6. Learned lower appellate Court after re-appraisal of the evidence on record held that there is no reason to disbelieve the version of the witnesses as the so-called contradictions and discrepancies pointed out by the defence are minor in nature. It was further held that the plea taken by the defence is palpably false. Holding thus, learned lower appellate Court found no reason to interfere and therefore, dismissed the appeal. Feeling further aggrieved, the accused petitioners have approached this Court in the present revision.

3. Heard Mr. P.K. Jena, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Mr. S.K. Mishra, learned Addl. Standing Counsel for the Stae.

4. Mr. P.K. Jena contended that in the absence of any independent corroboration, the evidence of P.Ws. 3, 4, 5 and 6 lacks credibility, more so as they are all related to the injured and therefore, both the Courts below committed error in relying upon such evidence. It is further contended that the defence plea was plausible but was rejected without any justified reason. It is finally argued by Mr. Jena that even otherwise the Courts below should have extended the benefit of Probation of Offenders Act to the petitioners considering the social background and their age.

5. Per contra, Mr. S.K. Mishra has supported the judgments of the Courts below by contending that the same are based on clear, cogent and consistent evidence. He further argues that law does not always requir