Convictions must be grounded in reliable evidence; lack of medical and corroborative testimony undermines prosecutorial claims, thereby entitling the accused to acquittal.

JUDGMENT :

(Ramesh Chand Malviya, J.)

The present appeal has been filed under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred as ‘Cr.P.C.’) challenging the Judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 16.01.2013 passed by the learned Adhoc Additional District Judge-III, Gaya in Sessions Trial No. 262 of 2009 arising out of Barachatte P.S. Case No. 107 of 2007, instituted for an offence punishable under Sections 341 , 323 and 325 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE whereby and where under sole appellant have been sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for nine months for offence punishable under Section 323 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE and further for imprisonment for one month for offence punishable under Section 341 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE with a direction that all sentence shall run concurrently.

2. Heard Mr. Rajesh Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant assisted by Mr. Sunil Kumar and Mr. Achyut Kumar and Mr. S. A. Ahmed, learned APP for the State.

3. The brief facts leading to the filing of the present appeal are that as per the fardbeyan of the informant, he was working in the field and his son Vikash Kumar was taking water from the house, then at about 12 noon there was a dispute between the Children, then it is said that Girdhari Yadav turned his Son Vikash Kumar down twice with intention to kill him and also put his body on his stomach when his Son became unconscious then he was brought to his house on his shoulder and being strand by the side of wall at his house in the unconscious stage when the villager came to know about the fact and Hulla was there, then he has left his son at his door step and it was stated to the informant and the other Children who is in field told that his son was killed by the Girdhari Yadav he and put at his door step. Then he came to his house and taken his son to the BNP Clinic where he was kept under treatment at the whole night after some recovery his son was taken to the house then his son was treated in Dr. Farasat Hussain and again turned to his house 04.08.2007 after treatment at last his son was treat at PHC Barachatte.

4. Initially the First Information Report lodge under Sections 341 , 323 and 325 INDIAN PENAL CODE and after investigation the charge sheet was submitted under Sections 341 , 323, 325 and 307 INDIAN PENAL CODE on that basis cognizance was taken and the case was cancelled to the Court of Session and the charge was framed on 14.09.2009.

5. The prosecution examined altogether 8 prosecution witnesses in this to substantiate the charges against the appellants persons, out of them PW-1 Gauri Devi, PW-2 Mabina Khatoon, PW-3 Raj Kumar Singh, PW-4 Ramdeo Prasad, PW-5 Rajendra Prasad, PW-6 Vikas Kumar, PW-7 Gauri Devi and PW-8 Ranju Devi. On the other hand, the defence has not produced any oral evidence rather the signature of the informant on the fardbeyan is marked as Ext-1. It is necessary to mention here that the Doctor along with Investigating Officer has not been examined during the trial and no medical report has been submitted by the prosecution to substantiate that informant sustained any injury.

6. In support of the prosecution case, the prosecution has brought eight witnesses and, out of which, PW- 1 mother of the victim, PW-2 is hostile, PW-3 and PW-4 are here say witnesses, PW-5 Rajendra Singh is the informant of this case and he is also not an eye witness in this case, PW-6 is stated about the assault, PW-7 not supported the case and all the witnesses are int