The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for sufficient evidence to establish the nature and severity of injuries in cases involving assault under the Indian Penal Code.

Gopal Prasad, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned counsel for the State.

2. The appellants have been convicted under Section 307/149 of Indian Penal Code and have been sentenced to undgergo rigorous imprisonment for five years. Appellant No. 5 Arjun Chauhan has further been convicted for offence under Section 379 I.PC. and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for one year. Further it has been ordered that all the sentences shall run concurrently.

3. The prosecution case as alleged by the informant Chameli Devi (P.W.4) that on 27. 05. 1992 at about 6 A.M. while she was working in her house all the appellants variously armed with entered into her house and abused her. Accused Arjun Chauhan enquired about her husband and when she protested then Arjun gave khanti blow on her head as a result of which she fell down. Thereafter, Kaila Chauhan assaulted her with handle of hand pump by which she got injury on her right hand and then other appellants have also been assaulted by lathi.

4. On basis of Fardbeyan, F.I.R. lodged. After investigation, charge sheet submitted. Cognizance taken and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions and charge was framed for offence under Section 307 and other allied Sections.

5. Six witnesses have been examined by the prosecution and one documentary evidence has also been adduced. Ext. 1 and 1/A is injury report, Ext. 2, Fardbeyan, Ext.3 endorsement of the officer-in-Charge over the same, Ext. 4, Formal F.I.R. and Ext. 5 is certified 3 copy of judgment. After considering both oral and documentary evidence, order of conviction and sentence has been passed.

6. Learned counsel for the appellants, however, contends that, though conviction has been recorded under Section 307 I.P.C., but report of the Doctor does not suggest that injury on the person of the injured was dangerous to life. It has further been contended that, though, Injury No. 2 to 6 has been shown to be grievous for the reason of its fracture, but X-Ray has not been adduced in evidence to infer that injury was grievous in nature and hence contends that conviction under Section 325 or 326 or 307 is not sustainable. It has further been contended that appellants Nos. 1, 5 and 7 who have been attributed of alleged assault have remained in jail for more than a year and allegation against other appellants are omnibus and no specific role has been attributed against them and hence conviction and sentence is not maintainable.

7. The prosecution case as alleged that accused persons came and there is specific allegation about assault by Arjun Chauhan and Kaila Chauhan. However, it is alleged that after assault the injured fell down and other accused persons have also assaulted by lathi. However, witnesses have supported the prosecution case.

8. P.W. 1 who is Doctor though, found eight injuries, but has stated that Injury No. 1 is on the head and Injury No. 7 is simple, but reserved the opinion regarding Injury Nos. 2 to 6. However, he has stated that supplementary injury report has been prepared after receipt of X-ray report on 02. 06. 1992 and has opined that Injury Nos. 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 and 8 shown ribe of right sight fractured and injuries are grievous in nature. However, in his cross-examination, he has stated X-ray plate not appeared before him and X-ray plate is not given in the supplementary report as he was not found X-ray plate as there was no X-ray Plant in Nawadah Sadar Hospital at that time and he can not say the name of X-ray Technician or Radiologist and he did not know where the injured got the X-ray done and he can not say whether X-ray had been done by Government or private technician. He has further stated that nature of fracture has not been given.

9. Hence in view of evidence of the Doctor that X-ray report has not been proved on record nor brought in evidence nor was present at the time of X-ray of the victim. Hence opinion and injury report with regard to Injury Nos. 2 to 6 as grievous is not a