The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for conclusive evidence to prove the extent of injuries and the connection to the accused in criminal cases.

S.P.GARG, J.

1. Present appeal under Section 372 Cr.P.C. has been preferred by the victim/injured Sunil Kumar to challenge the legality and correctness of a judgment dated 13.12.2012 of learned Additional Sessions Judge in Sessions Case No.229/1/2010 arising out of FIR No.72/2010 registered at Police Station Ranholla whereby respondents No.2 to 7 (hereinafter referred to as respondents) were held guilty for committing offence punishable under Section 324/34 IPC. By an order dated 19.01.2013, they were released on probation of good conduct; they were directed to pay Rs.7,000/-each as compensation to the victim. The appeal is contested by the respondents.

2. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have examined the file. After recording victim’s statement (Ex.PW-3/A) on 11.3.2010, the Investigating Officer lodged First Information Report. The victim was medically examined. The respondents were arrested; certain recoveries were effected at their instance. Upon completion of investigation, a charge-sheet was filed against the respondents for commission of offences punishable under Sections 307/452/427/34 IPC. By an order dated 14.9.2010 the respondents were charged under Sections 308/452/427/34 IPC. To establish its case, the prosecution examined twelve witnesses. In 313 Cr.P.C. statement, the respondents denied their involvement in the crime and pleaded false implication. They examined DW-1 (Ramesh Kumar), DW-2 (Suresh Chand) and DW-3 (Sunil Dutt) in defence. On appreciation of the evidence and after considering the rival contentions of the parties, the Trial Court held all the respondents guilty under Section 324/34 IPC.

3. It is relevant to note that one of the assailants Mohit Sharma was juvenile and by an order dated 29.07.2011, he was acquitted of the charge by Juvenile Justice Board. The said acquittal has not been challenged. It is pertinent to note that respondents have not challenged their conviction under Section 324/34 IPC. It is informed that the probation period is already over.

4. Learned counsel for the victim urged that the Trial Court committed grave error in convicting the respondents only for commission of offence under Section 324/34 IPC. The victim had sustained ‘grievous’ injuries on vital organs; had suffered 42 stitches on his head. The respondents in furtherance of common intention in a pre-planned manner with the sole intention to kill the victim had inflicted injuries with deadly weapons. The appellant had sustained injuries on his scalp; had fracture on his arm and knee. There were no sound reasons to release the respondents on probation.

5. Learned counsel for the respondents urged that there was no cogent evidence on record to base conviction even under Section 324/34 IPC. The complaint lodged by the victim was motivated and he himself was involved in a criminal case.

6. In the initial complaint (Ex.PW-3/A) forming basis of the FIR, the complainant disclosed that the assailants had inflicted injuries on his head as a result of which he became unconscious. At that time, nothing was revealed if the injuries were also caused on hand or knee resulting in fracture. PW-1 (Inderjeet), victim’s father took him to Deen Dayal Upadhyaya Hospital. As per the testimony, the injured was referred to Safdarjung hospital. From there, he got his son admitted at Jai Prakash Trauma centre where medical treatment was given to him. PW-1 (Inderjeet) did not reveal as to on which body parts, the victim had suffered injuries. In the cross-examination, he admitted that no medical document was prepared at DDU hospital for the initial treatment given to the victim. In his examination before the court as PW-3, the victim Sunil Kumar disclosed that the respondent Ashwani had wielded iron rod on his head and the other assailants had given beatings to him. He further disclosed that due to injuries sustained by him on his hand, he was not in a position to put signatures. A rod was inserted in his right hand and left