JUDGMENT

Ram Prasanna Sharma, J. - This appeal is preferred under Section 374 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against judgment dated 08.02.2011 passed by Special Judge [Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities), Act] in Special Session Trial No. 14/2010, wherein the said court convicted all the four appellants for commission of offence under Sections 436/34, 294, 323/34 & 323/34 of IPC, 1860 and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 4 years and fine of Rs. 1000/-, R.I. for 1 month and fine of Rs. 100/-, R.I. for 2 months and fine of Rs. 200/- & R.I. for 2 months and fine of Rs. 200/- respectively each with further default stipulations. All the sentences to run concurrently.

2. In the present case, name of the victims are Ishwar Nagarchi, Bhikham Nagarchi, Radha Bai & Thanwar Sahu. As per version of the prosecution, on 28.04.2010 at about 09:45 p.m., appellant No. 1- Mahendra Vaishnav caused injury by means of iron rod on left leg of wife of complainant namely Radha Bai whereas appellant No. 2 to 4 assaulted her by hands and fists. Further case of the prosecution is that after the assault, the accused persons abused the complainant- Bhikham Nagarchi and her wife and threatened them to kill. Appellant No. 1- Mahendra Vaishnav & appellant No. 2- Bhaktaram committed mischief by fire in house of Ishwar Nagarchi. The matter was reported and investigated, the appellants were charge-sheeted and after completion of trial, the trial court convicted as mentioned as above.

3. Learned counsel for the appellants submits as under:-

(i) There is material contradiction and omission in statement of Radha Bai (PW-1), Bhikham Nagarchi (PW-3) & Thanwar Sahu (PW-5) regarding commission of the offence.

(ii) There is previous enmity with family members of the appellants due to election of Sarpanch, but the same is overlooked by the trial court.

(iii) Dr. Sharda Thakur (PW-7) conducted medical examination of Radha Bai and found one injury which is simple in nature.

(iv) The trial court has not properly considered version of defence witness namely Bodhan Singh (DW-2), therefore, finding of the trial court is not sustainable.

(v) The trial court has not evaluated the evidence properly, therefore, the finding arrived at by the trial court is liable to be set aside.

4. On the other hand, learned State counsel submits that the finding arrived at by the trial court is based on proper marshaling of evidence and the same does not warrant any interference of this Court with invoking jurisdiction of the appeal.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

6. As per version of Radha Bai (PW-1), Thanwar Sahu (PW-5) knocked the door of her house when she opened the door, said Thanwar Sahu informed that Mahendra Vaishnav assaulted him. At the same time, appellant No. 4- Savitri Sahu and one Rukhmani assaulted this witness, thereafter, appellant No. 1- Mahendra Vaishnav & appellant No. 2- Bhaktaram assaulted her by iron rod. Version of this witness is supported by version of Bhikham.

7. As per version of Ishwar Nagarchi (PW-4), the appellants instigated for firing his house and thereafter, the accused persons set fire to his house. Dr. Sharda Thakur (PW-7) examined Radha Bai and noticed simple injuries on her thigh. One iron rod was brought before her which is seized in the present case and this witness opined that the injuries could be caused by this iron rod. From evidence of Ishwar Nagarchi (PW-4), it is established that some obscene words were used by the appellants which is unrebutted. All these witnesses have been subjected to searching cross-examination, but nothing could be elicited in favour of defence.

8. From the evidence, it is established that the appellants had common intention and in common intention, they caused simple injuries on body of Radha Bai and Bhikham. Act of the appellants falls within mischief of Sections 323/34 & 323/34 of IPC and their conviction under Sections 323/34 & 323/34 of