The central legal point established in the judgment is the application of the benefit of doubt principle and the importance of considering the entire statement of the accused during examination under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

1. This criminal revision is directed against the judgment dated 14-2-2003 delivered by the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Mahasamund in Criminal Appeal No. 149/200 1, whereby while affirming the conviction of the applicant herein under Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mahasamund in Criminal Case No.10 12/1995 the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for 3 years and fine of Rs.3,000/- was reduced to rigorous imprisonment for 2 years and fine of Rs.3,000/-.

2. Briefly stated the prosecution case is that Vaidehi, the wife of the applicant herein was living in her maternal home at Village Baldidih since a year prior to the date of occurrence. The applicant had, on 21-4-1995, gone to Village Baldidih to attend the wedding of the sister of Vaidehi. On the date of occurrence, at about 2 P.M., the applicant asked Vaidehi to accompany him to her matrimonial home and on her saying that she would accompany him after having meals, the applicant went to the nearby room, fetched a Tangiya and assaulted Vaidehi by the Tangiya on the left elbow. Blood started oozing from the wound. The applicant thereafter ran away with the Tangiya. Sister Bodhanibai, P. W.-2, her husband Udhav Kumar Nishad. P.W.-3, Parmanand, P.W.-4, brother of Vaidehi, Hembai, P.W.-8. mother of Vaidehi and Renuka, P. W.-9, wife of Parman and saw the occurrence. Report was lodged at 3: 15 P.M. by Vaidehi on 21-4-1995 at Police Station Pithoura. Dr. Mrs. P. Baghel, P.W.-6 examined Vaidehi at 4: 10 P.M. on 21-4-1995 and found one lacerated wound over left elbow joint 7cms.x5cms.x2cms. skin deep, bone visible with ftesh bleeding. She opined that the injury which was grievous in nature could have been caused by a hard and blunt object within 2 hours. She referred Vaidehi to O.K.Hospital for hospitalization and management. Vaidehi was admitted at D.K.Hospital. Raipur on 21-4-1995. It was found that she had compound ftacture ofthe left olecran. Vaidehi was discharged on 25-4-1995 vide discharge certificate Ex.P-I, which was proved by Dr. K. Sudarshan, P. W.-5 retired Professor of Surgery in Orthopedics. After completion of investigation, the applicant was prosecuted under Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. The applicant abjured the guilt and pleaded that when he asked Vaidehi to accompany him to his house, Udhav, P.W.-3 prevented Vaidehi from going with the applicant and ran towards the applicant with an Axe. At that point of time, while Vaidehi was preventing Udhav from assaulting him, he left for his home and did not know how Vaidehi sustained the injury.

4. The prosecution examined as many as 9 witnesses. Relying on the prosecution evidence, the Chief Judicial Magistrate convicted the applicant under Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for 3 years and fine of Rs.3,000/-.

5. Being aggrieved, the applicant preferred Criminal Appeal No. 149/200 1 before the 151 Additional Sessions Judge, Mahasamund. While affirming the conviction of the applicant under Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code, learned 151 Additional Sessions Judge reduced the substantive sentence to 2 years' rigorous imprisonment. Hence this revision.

6. Shri Adil Minhaj, learned counsel for the applicant argued that the conviction of the applicant under Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code is contrary to law because the testimony of Vaidehi that the applicant had assaulted her with the sharp side of the Tangiya was rendered wholly unreliable in view of the evidence of Dr. Mrs. P. Baghel, P.W.-6 and Dr. K. Sudarshan, P.W.-5, who have categorically stated that a lacerated wound could not be the result of an assault from the sharp side of the Tangiya. It was further argued that Vaidehi had admitted in paragraph 4 that after the assault, the applicant had left the Tangiya at the place of occurrence. Therefore, the seizure of the Tangiya from the applicant on 24-41995 was of no avail to the prosecution. It was also argued that the prosec