The duty of the prosecution to explain discrepancies between ocular and medical evidence and the impact of inimical relationships between witnesses and the accused on the case's outcome.

JUDGMENT

S.K. Sahoo, J. - The appellant Umesh Bagh faced trial in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate -cum- Assistant Sessions Judge, Sundargarh in Sessions Trial No.87/60 of 2015 for commission of offences punishable under sections 341, 323, 294, 506 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code.

The learned trial Court vide impugned judgment and order dated 11.04.2018 though acquitted the appellant of the charges under sections 341, 294 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code but found him guilty under sections 323 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- (rupees one thousand), in default, to undergo further simple imprisonment for two months under section 323 of the Indian Penal Code and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- (rupees ten thousand), in default, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for one year for the offence under section 307 of the Indian Penal Code and both the sentences were directed to run concurrently.

2. The prosecution case, as per the first information report lodged by one Ugrasen Bagh (P.W.1) before the Inspector in-Charge of Hemgir police station on 19.03.2015, is that on that day in the early morning, all of his family members had been to collect Mahua flowers and his wife Gulabati Bagh (P.W.2) was alone present in the house. At about 7.30 a.m., the informant heard shouting of P.W.2 that the appellant was assaulting her by means of a stick. Hearing such cry, P.W.1 along with his brother Gajendra Bagh (P.W.3) rushed to the spot and found that the appellant was continuing to assault P.W.2. Even though P.W.3 protested the appellant not to assault P.W.2 but the appellant did not listen rather he assaulted to P.W.3 with the stick with which he was assaulting P.W.2. It is the further prosecution case that on account of assault of the appellant, P.W.2 sustained injuries on her head and right hand. After arrival of the informant and his brother at the scene of occurrence, while leaving the spot, the appellant threatened P.W.2 with dire consequences. It is the further prosecution case that there was civil dispute between the family of the appellant and the informant over landed properties for which the appellant tried to assault P.W.2 to kill her.

The written report of P.W.1 was treated as F.I.R. and registered as Hemgir P.S. Case No.39 dated 19.03.2015 against the appellant under sections 341, 323, 294, 506 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code.

P.W.10 Budhadev Naik, S.I. of Police attached to Hemgir police station took up investigation of the case on the direction of the Inspector in-charge and during course of investigation, he examined the witnesses and recorded their statements, sent the injured Gulabati Bagh (P.W.2) for her medical examination at C.H.C., Hemgir, visited the spot, prepared the spot map (Ext.5), seized the weapon of offence, which is a stick lying at the spot under seizure list Ext.2, arrested the appellant and forwarded him to Court, received the injury report of P.W.2 and made a query relating to the possibility of injuries sustained by P.W.2 with the stick seized at the spot and received the opinion of the Medical Officer. On 15.04.2015 on completion of investigation, P.W.10 submitted charge sheet against the appellant under sections 341, 323, 294, 506 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. After submission of charge sheet, the case was committed to the Court of Session where the learned trial Court framed the charges against the appellant as already stated on 11.01.2016 and since the appellant refuted the charges, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried, the sessions trial procedure was resorted to prosecute him and establish his guilt. 4. The defence plea of the appellant is one of denial and it is pleaded that since there was civil dispute between the parties, he had been falsely implicated in the case. 5. During course of trial, in order to prove its case, the prosec