JUDGMENT

Manindra Mohan Shrivastava, J. -The aforesaid three appeals have been filed by the State assailing legality and validity of common judgment dated 19.4.2001 passed by learned lower appellate Court in three criminal appeal i.e. CRA No.195, CRA No.196 and CRA No.197 of 2000 filed by accused Dr.C.P. Agre, Rajkumar Upadhyay and Bali by which, the order of conviction passed by learned trial Court against the aforesaid accused has been set aside and all the accused acquitted of the charges by giving them benefit of doubt.

2. According to prosecution case, on 24.11.1992, at about 11:00 AM in the morning, respondent-accused C.P. Agre, Rajkumar, Bali and other accused assaulted Madhodas (PW2) and Dhannamal (PW2) with the help of axe, pick axe and other assaulting weapons, in which incident, these two victims sustained fracture injury on vital parts of their body. Upon report lodged by Parmanand (PW1), FIR was registered, investigation carried out and charge sheet was filed. Before the trial Court, prosecution examined two injured eyewitnesses namely Madhodas(PW2) and Dhannamal(PW3) who supported the case of the prosecution by deposing that they were assaulted by respondents-accused. Dr. S.S. Bhatia (PW5) proved fracture injury sustained by Madhodas (PW2) and Dhannamal (PW3). Parmanand (PW1), Chandrakumar (PW4), Bholanath (PW6), Gurumukhdas (PW10) were examined as eyewitness of the incident and all of them supported the prosecution case. Respondents-accused examined as many six defence witnesses. Accused- Dr. C.P. Agre took the defence that there was previous enmity because the complainant and their family members had encroached upon Govt. land in front of his house and a dispute had earlier arisen, number of complaints were made and a report was also lodged against misbehaviour of brother of the complainant with the wife of accused Dr. C.P. Agre and they were convicted also. He was on duty but falsely implicated. Accused- Rajkumar sought to defend himself by taking a defence that he is friend of Dr. C.P. Agre. He had taken action for removal of encroachment against the son of injured Dhannmal, in his capacity as President of the Nagar Panchayat, Bodari. Therefore, he has been falsely implicated. Respondent-accused Bali took the defence that at the time of alleged incident he was on duty in village- Parsada which is about 7 k.m. away from place of incident and he has been falsely implicated.

3. Learned trial Court not only relied upon evidence of injured witnesses-Madhodas (PW2) and Dhannamal (PW3) but also other eyewitnesses of the incident. Fracture injury sustained by Madhodas (PW2) and Dhannamal (PW3) was found proved from the evidence of the Dr. C.S. Sharma (PW9). As the prosecution story was found proved from the evidence of injured eyewitnesses supported by other eyewitness and the medical evidence, the respondents accused were convicted under Sections 148, 452, 326/149 IPC and sentenced separately for each of the offences. Aggrieved by the said judgment, respondents-accused preferred appeal before the Sessions Judge. Learned Sessions Judge, however, not only disbelieved the evidence of eyewitnesses but also of the injured eyewitnesses Madhodas (PW2) and Dhannamal (PW3). According to learned lower appellate Court, the evidence of the eyewitness including that of the injured witnesses suffer from contradiction and omission, lodging of FIR by Parmanand (PW1) was doubtful, there was previous enmity between Dr. C.P. Agre and the accused, ocular testimony is not fully corroborated from medical evidence and that the evidence of eyewitnesses is doubtful because there was unexplained delay in recording their case diary statement. Even though finding of learned trial Court on the aspect of alibi was not reversed, learned lower appellate Court allowed the appeals and acquitted the respondents-accused by giving them benefit of doubt. It is against this judgment of acquittal that the State has filed aforesaid three appeals.

4. Learned