The court highlighted that without independent corroboration, unreliable testimonies from interested witnesses cannot uphold a conviction in assault cases, especially when contradicted by medical evidence.

JUDGMENT :

S.S. Mishra, J.

The present Criminal Revision filed under Sections 401 & 397 of Cr.P.C. is directed against the judgment and order dated 23.09.2013 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bhanjanagar in Criminal Appeal No.21 of 2007, whereby the order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Bhanjanagar in S.T. Case No.6 of 2004 was confirmed.

2. The petitioner was subjected to prosecution in Badagada P.S Case No. 50 of 2003 registered under Sections 294 /307/34 of IPC .

3. The prosecution case in brief is that the accused persons are related as father and sons. They belong to village Badagada. The informant Sibarama Dauka is their co-villager. Allegedly the accused persons have a house constructed over a Government land, in front of which the informant had placed a wooden cabin for vending tea. On 13.05.2003 as per the order of the concerned Tahasildar, the cabin of the informant was demolished. On 14.05.2003 in the morning, the informant while collecting the wooden planks of the cabin which was demolished during the course of eviction by the Tahasildar, the accused persons were staked bricks over the land where the cabin of the informant had been placed. When the informant asked them to wait till he removed all the planks of the broken cabin, they got annoyed. Accused Sanatana Martha while arguing with the informant, the petitioners brought deadly weapons and attacked the informant suddenly and abused him in obscene languages. Then petitioner no.2 raised sword to assault on his head. When the informant obstructed, the sword hit his right hand. He sustained bleeding injuries and fell down. Accused Sanatan Martha sat on his chest and throttled his neck. Petitioner no.1 assaulted him by means of a crow-bar on his waist and leg. When he raised hue and cry, witnesses Prakash Sahu, Muna Dakua (P.W.3), Jayaram Padhy (P.W.4) and Rabindra Dakua (P.W.2) arrived there and rescued him from further assault. They took the informant to Badagada hospital and after being treated there, he returned to the Badagada P.S. and reported the matter. On the basis of such allegation, F.I.R. was lodged at Badagada Police Station on 14.05.2003, which was registered as Badagada P.S Case No.50 of 2003 under Sections 294 /307/34 of IPC . After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was submitted against the accused persons under /307/326/34 of and charge were framed against them under those Sections. The petitioners were put to trial.

4. To bring home the charges, the prosecution had examined as many as nine witnesses and exhibited five documents. The injured-informant was examined as P.W.1 and three of the F.I.R. named witnesses was examined as P.Ws.2, 3 and 4. Besides the said witnesses, P.Ws.5 and 7 are two seizure witnesses and P.W. 6 was a resident of Badagada said to be present at the time of occurrence. P.W.8 was the doctor who hasd issued the injury report and had given opinion on the query of the Investigating Officer (P.W. 9). The plea of defence was that of completely denial. In proof of their plea, defence had examined one of the accused persons namely Sanatan Martha as D.W.1.

5. Now coming to the evidence led by the prosecution, P.Ws.2, 3 and 4 who are the F.I.R. named witnesses, all are Home Guards and the victim-informant is also a Home Guard. So, they have all colluded to create a false case as they are interested witnesses. P.W.3 (Muna Dakua) was also a co-accused with informant in the counter case registered as G.R. Case No.84 of 2003 on the F.I.R. of accused Sanatan Martha in the court of the learned J.M.F.C., Sorada. Coming to the discrepancy on oral evidence and medi