In criminal cases, lack of medical evidence and reasonable doubt necessitate acquittal on serious charges, while lesser charges may still stand.

JUDGMENT :

Ananda Sen, J.

This Criminal Appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction dated 28.04.2017 and order of sentence dated 03.05.2017 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-V, Garhwa, in Sessions Trial No.12 of 2004, whereby, the appellants have been convicted under Sections 323, 324, 325, 326, 307 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced for one year rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.500/- under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code. They were further sentenced for one year rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.500/- under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code, rigorous imprisonment for three years and fine of Rs.1,000/- under Section 325 of the Indian Penal Code, rigorous imprisonment for five years and fine of Rs.2,000/-under Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code, rigorous imprisonment for ten years and fine of Rs.3,000/- under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code and rigorous imprisonment for one year and fine of Rs.500/- under Section 504 of the Indian Penal Code.

2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants submitted that admittedly there was dispute between the parties and there is high probability that these appellants have falsely been implicated in this case. He further submitted that P.W. 1 (Ajay Kumar Kushwaha) in his cross-examination, has stated that these appellants had registered a case on his father, which is still pending. He also argued that the statement of P.W.1 clearly suggests that since a case is pending against the father of P.W.1, at the instance of these appellants, these appellant have falsely been implicated in this case. He also argued that so far as injuries are concerned, P.W. 3 (Sarsawati Devi) had stated that his son met with motorcycle accident eight days back. This statement also suggest that injury on the son of P.W.3, if any, was due to the said accident, which has got nothing to do with this incident of assault by the appellants. He further argued that P.Ws. 1, 3 and 7 (the informant) are highly interested witnesses as they are from the family of the informant, thus, their evidence should be scrutinised very carefully. He submitted that non-examination of the Doctor has caused a great prejudice to these appellants. Based on the said arguments, the appellants pray for acquittal.

3. Counsel appearing on behalf of the State submitted that P.W. 1 (Ajay Kumar Kushwaha), P.W. 3 (Sarsawati Devi) and P.W. 7 (Saneyal Mahato) have categorically stated that these appellants have assaulted P.Ws. 1 and 7. P.Ws. 1 and 7 being the injured witnesses have also stated the manner in which the appellant have assaulted them. She further submitted that the weapon of assault was axe, which is a deadly weapon, and the injury on the head, clearly suggests that the intention of these appellants was to commit murder of P.Ws. 1 and 7. It is submitted that only on the basis that the witnesses are related, their testimony cannot be discarded. Further P.W. 2 (Arma Kushwaha), who is an eye witness, has deposed that he had seen Kapildeo Mahto giving axe blow on the head of P.W.7 and Upendra Mahto assaulted P.W. 1 on his shoulder and Sashikala also assaulted P.Ws. 1 and 7 with lathi. She submitted that the judgment needs no interference.

4. Prosecution case as per the written report of Sanial Mahato is that his two brothers Kapildeo Mahato and Upendra Kumar Mahato and sister, Sashikala Kumari were irrigating their onion field when water went into the informant’s wheat field which he saw at 05.00 A.M. on 01.04.2003 and made query with the accused persons where upon they started abusing him and assaulted him and his son, Ajay Kumar with lathi and axe due to which they sustained injury. People came and intervened. On the basis of his fardbeyan Meral P.S. Case No.33 of 2013 was registered under Section 323, 325, 307/34 of IPC.

5. The police after investigation submitted chargesheet upon which the Court took cognizance and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions. The Court framed charge