The consistency of testimonies and medical evidence, along with the absence of a valid explanation for the accused's absence, were crucial in upholding the conviction and rejecting the application of the Probation of Offenders Act.

Rajesh H. Shukla, J.

1. Criminal Appeal No. 293/2013 has been filed by the appellant-original accused No. 2 and Criminal Appeal No. 294/2013 has been filed by the appellants-original accused Nos. 1, 3 and 4 against the judgment and order rendered in Sessions Case No. 76/2011 by the Additional Sessions Judge, Gandhinagar dated 11th February, 2013 recording conviction of the appellant-original accused persons of both appeals as stated in detail in the impugned judgment and order imposing sentence and fine.

2. The facts of the case briefly summarized are as follows:-

2.1 On 04.05.2011, there was a marriage function of the nephew of the complainant, for which, near temple of Baliyadev, there was dinner fixed. At about 09:30 p.m., the accused persons came there armed with weapons like dhariya, stick etc. and made a grievance that why they were not invited, however, they were pacified that they may not abuse the complainant side and if there is any grievance, it could be sorted out and, therefore, the accused persons started returning, however thereafter, they assaulted the complainant party i.e. Chelaji, Govindji, Popatji Somaji, Amratji Umedji, Chanduji Udaji, Sursangji Keshaji etc. and also few females like the daughter of the complainant, Naginaben, wife of the complainant, Kushiben etc. as stated in the FIR.

2.2 Therefore FIR came to be lodged being C.R. No. I-28/2011 with Pethapur Police Station for the offences under Sections 323, 324, 307, 325, 504, 506(2)and 114 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act.

2.3 After the investigation was over, the charge-sheet was filed and as the offences were triable by the Court of Sessions, it was committed to the Court of Sessions, Gandhinagar.

2.4 Thereafter, the Court below proceeded with the trial and recorded further statements of the accused under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code.

2.5 After hearing the learned APP as well as learned advocate for the defence and on appreciation of the evidence, the Court below recorded conviction of the appellants-accused and sentenced them as stated in the impugned judgment.

3. It is this judgment and order which has been assailed in both appeals on the grounds stated in the memo of appeal.

4. Heard learned advocate, Shri J.M. Budhbhatti appearing for the appellant-original accused No. 2 in Criminal Appeal No. 293/2013, learned advocate, Shri Rushabh Shah appearing for the appellants-original accused Nos. 1, 3 and 4 in Criminal Appeal No. 294/2013 and learned APP Shri Jani for the respondent-State in both appeals.

5. Learned advocate, Shri Budhbhatti referred to the testimony of PW-9, injured complainant and also referred to FIR at Exh.31. He submitted that the version in the FIR and the testimony are different, for which, he minutely referred to the testimony of the complainant, PW-2 at Exh.13 and FIR at Exh.31. He emphasized that there are material contradictions and, therefore, the impugned judgment and order recording conviction may not be sustained. It was emphasized that even the place of incident is not properly stated and the witnesses have differently described as the occasion is stated to be near the temple and few witnesses have stated different place suggesting that they are telling different version with regard to the scene of offence. Similarly, it was submitted that even the weapons used are not supporting as the complainant has stated about the assault with sickle (danti) and at some places, it has been referred to as dharia. Learned advocate, Shri Budhbhatti referring to the testimony of PW-2, complainant submitted that it is stated that the aggression party like the accused have also returned back and there is no explanation as to what transpired resulting in the accident in a spur of moment. He therefore emphasized that the incident has occurred all of a sudden and, therefore, considering the facts and circumstances, the conviction for the offence under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code c