Prosecution must provide reliable evidence, including original injury reports, to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt; inconsistencies and lack of corroborating evidence may lead to acquittal.

JUDGMENT :

Alok Kumar Pandey, J.

Heard Mr. Krishna Kant Singh, learned Amicus Curiae for the appellants and learned A.P.P. for the State.

2. The present appeal has been directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 26.03.2004 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-IV, F.T.C., Buxar in Sessions Trial No. 820/92 / 37/2002 whereby and whereunder appellants have been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code and they have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code .

3. As per prosecution case, the informant Kameshwar Singh along with his mother and wife, who were all in an injured condition, gave his statement before the police that while the informant was sitting in the shop of Mangru Carpenter, Ganesh Yadav came and informed him that a fight was taking place at his house. When the informant reached house, he saw Santosh Singh (appellant no. 1) holding a digging iron rod (Rami), Mantokhi Singh (since deceased) holding a lathi and Karan Singh (appellant no. 2) holding a spade (kudal). They had entered the informant’s house and were assaulting his mother, brother, and sister. The informant was also surrounded by the appellants and others. Santosh Singh (appellant no. 1) is said to have struck him on the head with the ranni, as a result of which the informant sustained head injury. Co-accused Mantokhi Singh (since deceased) is said to have assaulted the informant’s wife on the head with a lathi as a result of which she sustained head injury. The appellants and others are further alleged to have assaulted the informant’s mother, brother, and sister with lathis, as a result of which they also sustained injuries. The reason behind the occurrence was a dispute regarding drainage water, which had been blocked by the appellants and others. Uma Shankar Singh, the informant’s brother had cut open the drain so that the accumulated water in the courtyard could flow out. On account of this, the appellants and others assaulted the informant and his family members.

4. On the basis of fardbeyan, Murar P.S. Case no. 25/1990 was registered for the offence punishable under Sections 452 , 341, 323, and 324 of the Indian Penal Code and later on, on the basis of supervision note given by the police Inspector, Sections 325 and 307 I.P.C. were added in the charge-sheet. On the basis of charge-sheet, cognizance was also taken under aforesaid Sections and the case was committed to court of learned Additional Sessions Judge-IV, F.T.C., Buxar for trial and disposal. Charges were framed against the appellants under Sections 325 /34, 324, 307 and 452 I.P.C. and charges were read over and explained to the accused persons to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5. In order to bring home guilt of accused persons, prosecution has examined all together five witnesses as P.W. 1- Kameshwar Singh (informant), P.W. 2-mother of the informant (Pardhano Devi), P.W. 3- wife of the informant (Sudha Devi), P.W. 4- Mohan Ojha and P.W. 5- Satyendra Singh (Medical Officer). Prosecution has produced one exhibit as Exhibit- 1 (FIR).

6. Defence of the appellants as gathered from the line of cross-examination of prosecution witnesses as well as from the statement under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. is that of total denial.

7. After hearing the parties, the learned trial court convicted the appellants and sentenced them as indicated in the opening paragraph of the judgment.

8. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the original injury report is not available on record and no injury report has been exhibited. It is only mentioned that the doctor