The necessity of producing the doctor who attended to the injured as a witness and providing conclusive proof for serious charges under the IPC.

P.S.TEJI, J

1. The present four appeals have been filed assailing the judgment dated 22.03.2002 vide which the appellants-Dharmender, Manoj, Kamlesh Yadav, Shiv Prasad @ Bholu, Shiv Bachan and Lal Bachan have been convicted under Section 307/34 IPC and sentenced vide order on sentence dated 27.03.2002. Therefore, all these appeals are being 6decided together.

2. The above captioned four appeals arise out of a common judgment dated 22.03.2002 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge whereby the appellants have been held guilty for the offence punishable under Section 307/34 of Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as I.P.C.) and vide order on sentence dated 27.03.2002, the appellants have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years each and fine of Rs.5,000/- each for the offence under Section 307/34 of IPC and in default of payment of fine they were further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months.

3. The facts as emerging from the impugned judgment are that on 12.10.1996, an information was received at Police Station that one person had been stabbed on which ASI Partap Singh went to the spot and started investigation of this case. During investigation, the evidence was collected that all the accused persons alongwith complainant Roshan Lal had gone to play cricket at Surajmal Stadium where the accused persons started abusing the complainant. When it was objected to by the complainant he was stabbed by the accused persons, as a result of which he received injuries.

4. To prove the charges against the appellant, the prosecution examined 19 witnesses. They are; Roshan Lal (PW-1); Prahlad (PW2); Parmod Kumar (PW-3); Naresh Kumar (PW-4); Constable Pawan Kumar (PW-5); Dr. A. Bhasin, Radiologist (PW-6); Dr. K.K. Kumra (PW-7); Constable Surinder Kumar (PW-8), Rajinder Singh (PW-9); Constable Jai Pal Singh (PW-10); Parvinder Singh, Photographer (PW-11); Sub-Inspector Ajit Singh (PW-12); Dr. K.K. Kamra (PW13); Mr. Karamjogi (PW-14); Head Constable Munshi Lal (PW-15); Constable Silandera Singh (PW-16); Sub-Inspector Jarnail Singh (PW-17); ASI Pratap Singh (PW-18); and Constable Tara Chand (PW19).

5. After examination of the prosecution evidence the statement of accused persons under Section 313 Cr.P.C. were recorded wherein all the appellants claimed to be innocent. However, they did not produce any evidence in their defence.

6. Upon considering the facts, evidence led and the material on record, the learned Additional Sessions Judge held the appellants guilty for offence punishable under Sections 307/34 of IPC by impugned judgment dated 22.03.2002, and vide order on sentence dated 27.03.2002 the appellants were sentenced as indicated above. Hence, the appellants have filed the instant appeal against the impugned judgment and order on sentence passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge. During pendency of the present appeal, the sentence imposed upon the appellants was suspended.

7. The main grounds of challenge are that no independent witness supported the allegations that the appellants had caught hold of the complainant and then he was attacked with knives and hockey. There was no common intention between the appellants for making an attempt to commit the murder of the complainant. There was no dispute between the complainant and accused persons prior to the incident. Independent witnesses Pramod Kumar (PW3) and Naresh Kumar (PW4) did not support the case of prosecution or the version of the complainant. There is no sufficient evidence on record to convict the appellants. It has been submitted that the knives were never recovered and the recovery shown is the planted one. It was further submitted that the father of the complainant had not been made a witness by the prosecution. There is no opinion of the doctor with regard to use of recovered knife. It was further submitted that the doctor who had given the opinion had not been examined to prove his opinion.

8. Per contra,