The standard of proof in criminal trials is beyond reasonable doubt; any ambiguity or inconsistency in the prosecution's evidence justifies acquittal.

JUDGMENT :

CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY, J.

1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 17.07.2012 passed in Sessions Case No. 109 of 2006 on the file of learned Sessions Judge, Jamnagar, whereby, the respondent Nos. 1 to 3, who are accused Nos. 1 to 3 (A1 to A3) in the said case were acquitted of the offences punishable under Sections 307 , 323, 326 r/w. 114 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE , 1860 (IPC) and Section 135(1) of the BOMBAY POLICE ACT .

2. Outlined facts of the prosecution case may stated as follow:

2.1 PW-1 is the complainant. He is the resident of Samrat Ashoknagar in Jamnagar city. PW-2 and PW-6 are the sons of PW-1 and PW-3 is the daughter of PW-1. They all are residing together in the house of PW-1. A1 is also the resident of the same street and he is also residing nearby the house of PW-1. A2 and A3 are the brothers of A1 and they are all residing together in one house.

2.2 It is stated that on 19.08.1995, at about 11:30 a.m., PW-1 was hearing music in his tap-recorder. At the same time, A1 was also hearing the music in his tap-recorder at his house. As PW-1 was hearing the tap-recorder with high volume of sound, A1 requested him to reduce the volume of sound. But, it is stated that, he did not pay heed to his request and did not reduce the volume. Therefore, altercation took place between A1 and PW-1. So, it is stated, that A1 to A3, who are the brothers, visited the house of PW-1 armed with stick, axe and iron pipe. According to the prosecution, A1 was armed with a stick, A2 was armed with an axe and A3 was armed with an iron pipe and A1 to A3 attacked PW-1 and his sons PW-2 and PW-6 and his daughter PW-3. It is stated, that A1 beat PW-1 with stick on his head, left ear and hand and caused injuries to him and that, A1 also beat PW-6 with the stick, A2 attacked PW-2 with an axe and caused injuries to him and A3 attacked PW-3 with iron pipe and caused injuries to him.

2.3 PW-4 who is the resident of the same street and who is the their neighbour, witnessed the incident of A1 to A3 attacking the PW-1 to PW-3 and PW-6 with the said weapons.

2.4 On the report lodged by PW-1 immediately on the date of offence, police registered a case against the A1 to A3 for the offences punishable under Sections 307 , 323, 326 and 114 of the IPC and under Section 135(1) of the BOMBAY POLICE ACT .

2.5 A1 to A3 were arrested on the next day i.e. 20.08.1995. On interrogation, it is stated that they disclosed before the police that they would show the place where they have hidden the weapons i.e. the stick, axe and iron pipe and that, if the police accompany them, that they would show the place where the weapons were hidden. Accordingly, they led the police to the place where they have hidden the said weapons and at the instance of A1, that the stick was recovered and at the instance of A3, that iron pipe was recovered in the presence of the mediators who are examined as PW-9 to PW-11. A panchnama was prepared at that time.

2.6 The injured PW-1 to PW-3 and PW-6 were sent for medical examination. It is stated that they were admitted in the hospital but PW-1 went away from the hospital unauthorizedly against the medical advice. The doctor who examined them has issued the Injury Certificates.

2.7 After completion of investigation, eventually, the police have filed the Charge-sheet against the A1 to A3 for the aforesaid offences.

2.8 In the trial Court, charges for the offence punishable under Sections 307 , 323, 326 and 114 of the IPC and under Section 135(1) of the BOMBAY POLICE ACT were framed against the accused. They denied the charges and claimed to be tried.

2.9 In the trial that took place, the prosecution got examined PW-1 to PW-12 witnesses and got marked six exhibits to substantiate its case against the accused.

2.10 After conclusion of the trial, upon considering the said evidence on rec