The main legal point established in the judgment is the significance of inconsistencies in evidence, non-examination of the Investigating Officer, and the presence of a counter case in influencing the court's decision.

1. Appellant, Birendra Chaudhary has been found guilty for an offence punishable under Section 504 IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for one year, under Section 324 IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for one year, under Section 307 IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for five years as well as to pay fine appertaining to Rs. 2000/- in default thereof, to undergo S.I. for one month, additionally with a further direction to run the sentences concurrently, with a further direction to set off the period having undergone during course of trial under Section 428 Cr.P.C. by the Additional Sessions Judge, IInd, Gaya vide judgment of conviction dated 25.11.2014 and order of sentence dated 29.11.2014 passed in connection with Sessions Trial No. 456 of 2006 and 46 of 2014.

2. Sheo Kumar Chaudhary, PW-9 filed written report on 17.05.2006 alleging inter-alia that on the same day at about 08:30 PM while he along with his family members was at his house, his neighbour Birendra Chaudhary who is a toddy seller was engaged in offering toddy to customers at the roof of his house and during course thereof, was abusing him as well as his family members whereupon, they resisted as a result of which, he became enraged and then, came at his Darwaja carrying sickle (Pasuli) and began to assault them at his Darwaja. During course thereof, Birendra Chaudhary inflicted Pasuli blow over his neck with an intention to kill which he ward of by his hand as a result of which, there was cut near left elbow. He gave another blow causing injury over right arm. When his brother Raj Kumar Chaudhary came in rescue, Birendra Chaudhary again gave Pasuli blow over his neck as a result of which, he sustained severe injury thereupon (left side). Birendra Chaudhary also inflicted repeated blow over his chest. He had inflicted Pasuli blow over Ramjiee Chaudhary causing injury at his left inter-costal region, fingers of right hand, below right eye. He had also assaulted his wife Chinta Devi. When villagers assembled on an alarm, he succeeded in his escape. Then, thereafter, they were lifted to hospital.

3. After registration of Tekari P.S. Case No. 68/2006 on the basis of the aforesaid written report, investigation commenced and after concluding the same, charge-sheet was submitted facilitating the trial which ultimately concluded in a manner, subject matter of instant appeal.

4. Defence case as is evident from mode of cross-examination as well as statement recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. is that of complete denial. It has also been suggested that prosecution party brutally assaulted them for which a case was registered. Only to make out a defence case in order to save their skin, this false case has filed as counter blast. However, neither oral nor documentary evidence has been adduced on his behalf.

5. In order to substantiate its case prosecution had examined altogether nine PWs. those are PW-1 Ramjee Chaudhary, PW-2 Raj Kumar Chaudhary, PW-3 Chinta Devi, PW-4 Md. Javed Alam, PW-5 Phul Kumari, PW-6 Nishar Ahmad, PW-7 Ram Bikash Chaudhary, PW-8 Subedar Chaudhary, PW-9 Shiv Kumar Chaudhary. Side by side had also exhibited Ext.1 Series-Respective Injury Report and Ext.2-Written Report. As stated above, neither ocular nor documentary evidence has been adduced at the end of the accused/appellant.

6. While assailing the judgment of conviction and sentence, it has been submitted on behalf of learned counsel for the appellant that from the evidences available on the record it is crystal clear that none of the independent witnesses have supported the case of the prosecution. Whoever been, are the family members and being an interested, inimical witness their evidences are liable to be rejected. Furthermore, it has also been submitted that there happens to be inconsistency amongst their evidence over genesis of occurrence as well as manner of occurrence coupled with place of occurrence and so, apart from their evidences being unreliable, unacceptable, unworthy of creden