ORDER :

Shree Chandrashekhar, J.

Sewak Mahto, Sugiya Devi, Gyani Mahto and Rajendra Mahto faced the trial on the charge under sections 341/34, 323/34, 504/34, 506/34 and 307/34 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE . They have been found guilty of committing the offence under sections 341 and 323 read with section 34 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE and sentenced to SI for one month and a fine of Rs. 2,000/- each under section 341/34 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE and RI for six months and a fine of Rs. 5,000/- each under section 323/34 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE with default stipulations. The trial Judge has passed a further direction to pay the fine amount to the informant and his wife who are the victims.

2. The appellants were however acquitted of the charge under sections 307, 504 and 506/34 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE .

3. Khirodhar Mahto who is the informant of this case has filed Acquittal Appeal against the judgment of acquittal passed in S.T. No. 250 of 2017.

4. Barkagaon PS Case No. 179 of 2016 was registered on the basis of a written report given by Khirodhar Mahto to the officer-in-charge of Barkagaon police station making allegations of marpit and assault in the morning of 25th July 2016 by the above-named accused persons. The informant has stated that on his raising objection to Sewak Mahto who was encroaching upon his land by raising aal, the accused persons started marpit with him and when his wife intervened she was also assaulted by them and they snatched her golden earrings. On the basis of such allegation, a First Information Report was lodged on 28th July 2016 against them under sections 341, 323 and 379/34 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE and after investigation a charge sheet was laid in the Court for committing the offence under sections 341/34, 323/34, 504/34, 506/34 and 307/34 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE .

5. In the trial, the prosecution has produced six witnesses to prove the charge under sections 341/34, 323/34, 504/34, 506/34 and 307/34 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE which was framed against the accused on 18th January 2019. The injury reports of Jirwa Devi and her husband Khirodhar Mahto vide Ext. 2 and 2/1 were also laid in evidence by the prosecution.

6. The learned Additional Sessions Judge-VII, Hazaribag has held as under:

“23. In the instant case 'out of prosecution witnesses 1 to 4 PW-1 and PW-2 are independent and hearsay witnesses whereas, PW-3 and PW-4 are the injured witnesses who are the husband and wife. In the fact and circumstances of the case they appears to be the natural witnesses and it has been held in catena of judgment of the Hon'ble Court that 'the testimony of an injured witness has its own relevancy and efficacy as he has sustained injuries at the time and place of occurrence and this lends support to his testimony that he was present during the occurrence and therefore, the testimony of an injured witness is accorded a special status in law. Hence, I do not find any reason to disbelieve the testimony of PW-3 and PW-4 being related to each other.

24. Furthermore, though the counsel for the accused persons tried to convince the Court with regard to contradiction in the evidence of the eye-witnesses (PW 3 & 4) with respect to the manner in which the assault took place, such attempt remains futile and cannot be accepted, in as much as minor variations in the evidence of the witnesses are bound to occur in a case like the one on hand, wherein, four accused persons came and assaulted the informant and his wife who are illiterate rustic villagers at a time and there was no other witness except them. I do not find any major contradiction in the evidence of the eye-cum-injured witnesses. Their evidence is fully supported by their injury report (Ext 2 & 2/1) prepared by Dr. R.C Prasad who examined them in PHC, Barkagoan. It is also settled principle of law that sense of perceiving the facts defers from man to man and memory also sometimes play false with man and therefore minor contradictions are bound to occur in the statem