A. PASAYAT, J.

( 1 ) PETITIONERS assail correctness of judgment in appeal passed by learned Addi. Sessions Judge, Balasore maintaining the convictions and sentences under sections 148 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the IPC) in respect of petitioners Sashibhusan Sabu, Krutibas Pradhan and Sanyani Pradhan and under sections 148 and 323/149, IPC against the rest of the petitioners.

( 2 ) PETITIONERS faced trial on the accusation that on 16. 11. 1982 one Sarat Chandra Mohapatta (informant-PW1) was cutting paddy in his field. At about 10 A. M. the accused persons being armed with deadly weapons came there and as saluted him and his laborers causing several injuries, some of which were grievous in nature. The matter was reported at Baliapal Police Station and F. I. R. was lodged. After investigation, charge-sheet was submitted and petitioners faced trial for offences under sections 147/14913231 325, IPC. On evaluation of evidence, accused Sashi, Krutibas and Sanyasi were found guilty under sections 148/323/325, IPC and they were found not guilty under sections 147/149, IPC while others were found guilty under sections 148 and 149 read with sections 323/325,ipc and were found not guilty under section 147,1pc. Accused Sashi, Krutibas and Sanyasi were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months six months and one year each for the offence under sections 148/323/325, IPC respectively and the other accused persons were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months, three months and six months each for the offences indicated above. The sentences were directed to run consecutively.

( 3 ) IN appeal, learned Addi. Sessions Judge set aside the conviction under section 325, IPC s far as accused Sashi, Kr. utibas and Sanyasiar concerned, and conviction of all others in respect of offences under sections 325/149, IPC was also set aside. Sentences in respect of other offences as described were maintained.

( 4 ) MAIN grounds of attack in appeal were as follows: The Doctor who is stated to have rendered first aid after the occurrence at Balispal P. H. C. was not examined and bed head tickets were not proved. Requisitions sent for examination to Balasore Headquarters Hospital indicate that Sarat Chandra Mohapatra and Gajendra Mohalik were to be examined, but the certificate so far as Gajendra is concerned, was not brought on record, Nonexamination of this Gajendra Mohalik affected the credibility of prosecution case. The x-ray plates in respect of the informant and Gajendra were not proved and therefore, materials on record did not bring home the charge against the petitioners. Learned Addi. Sessions Judge came to hold that non-production of x-ray plates excluded possibility of conviction under section 325, IPC which he set aside, but so far as liability under section 323, IPC is concerned, he held that the same was established. Learned Addi. Sessions Judge referred to the evidence of various prosecution witnesses and came to the conclusion that offences as described above, have been established.

( 5 ) LEARNED counsel for petitioners, has strenuously urged that evidence being discrepant and material discrepancies having not been considered in right perspective by courts below, interference is warranted. Mainly the following aspects have been highlighted. (i) Specific overt acts have not been attributed to the accused and therefore, the conviction is illegal. The ingredients of sections 148 and 149, IPC have not been established. (ii) The evidence in Court and the statement in the FIR are materially different. When P. W. 1 stated that he regained consciousness at 2 P. M. , the FIR could not have been lodged at 12 noon If informant had sustained injury on right hand middle finger, his signature in F. I. R. could not have been in legible and clear letters. (iii) The bed head tickets and x-ray plates having not been produced and Doctor (P. W. 4) having stated that he could not say who is the injured,