The court emphasized the need for evidence of intention or knowledge for specific charges and upheld the legality of the probation and compensation awarded.

( 1 ) THIS criminal leave to appeal under section 378 (iii) and (i) Cr. P. C. has been filed by the State against judgment and order dated 25. 10. 2005 passed by learned Additional sessions Judge (Fast Track), Pratapgarh in sessions Case No. 72/05 (State Vs. Chhaganlal and ors.) whereby the accused respondents have been acquitted of the charges under Sections 452, 308, 308/149, 325, 325/149 IPC and have been convicted for the offence under Sections 147, 341 and 323 IPC and instead of sending them to jail, they have been released on probation on furnishing bail bond to maintain peace and not to commit any any offence within a period of two years. It has also been ordered that the accused shall pay compensation to each of the injured persons @ Rs. 300/- and in all Rs. 2100/-were paid to them.

( 2 ) THE prosecution in this case was initiated on the basis of Ex. P/2 Parcha Bayan recorded at Government Hospital, Chhoti Sadari on 13. 11. 2004 of PW6 Munna @ Mahivardhan Singh. In all, 15 injuries were found on his person. Two injuries were on his head and other were on legs and other parts of the body and have been found to be simple in nature. Injury No. 8 and 9 were on left forearm. It was stated that the accused party along with Chhaganlal came to the complainant and inflicted injuries by Lathis and thereby caused injuries to the complainant.

( 3 ) AFTER completion of investigation, challan was filed in the trial court and charge was framed against the accused persons under sections 147, 148, 452, 308, 308/149, 325, 325/149, 341 and 323 IPC. The accused denied the charge and claimed trial. In support of its case, prosecution examined 11 witnesses. After close of the prosecution evidence, in the statement recorded under Section 313 Cr. P. c. , the accused persons denied their involvement in the incident and claimed to be innocent. In defence, no witness was examined. The learned trial court after hearing learned counsel for the parties, acquitted the accused-respondents of the charge framed against them vide its judgment and order of dated 25. 10. 2005 and convicted them for the offence under Sections 147, 341 and 323 IPC. Hence, the present criminal leave to appeal has been filed.

( 4 ) HEARD learned Public Prosecutor and carefully gone through the material available on record.

( 5 ) IT has been contended by learned public Prosecutor that the learned trial court has wrongly acquitted the accused respondents of the offence under sections 308 and 325 IPC. He submitted that the injuries caused on the person of complainant were found to be of grievous nature, therefore, the accused respondents should be convicted under Sections 308 IPC. He further submitted that the leave to appeal has been filed after delay of 17 days, which may be condoned as getting sanction for filing this leave to appeal the time was consumed.

( 6 ) I have considered the submissions made before me. It is to be seen that the learned trial court while acquitting the accused respondents for the offence under Sections 149, 308, 308/149, 325 and 325/149 IPC has scanned the evidence and came to the conclusion that as per the evidence, statement of PW7 Dr. Arun mathur who examined the complainant and the statement of PW6 Munna @ Mahiverdhan Singh, injury No. 8 and 9 on left forearm are grievous but in the injury report and in the statements, no reason has been assigned as to how the injuries are grievous in nature. Learned trial court further found that how and in what manner the radiologist took X-ray of the complainant and how gave the report was not explained. PW6 Dr. Arun Mathur admitted in his cross-examination that the X-ray was not brought before him neither by the injured nor by the police persons. The learned trial court further found that the injury report does not contain signature of the injured and after assessing this evidence of the doctor clearly held that though the incident had taken place but the evidence led by him was doubtful.

( 7 ) A