The court's decision highlights the importance of carefully evaluating the evidence before reaching a verdict, considering the principles of probation, and protecting the reputation of witnesses.

V.K.BALI, J.

1. Bant Singh and Nachhattar Singh, appellants, who have filed Crl. Appeal No. 473-SB of 1990, were tried of the charges framed against them under Ss. 307/324/323 read with S. 34, of the IPC. After resultant trial, which was conducted by Additional Sessions Judge, Bhatinda, they were acquitted of the charge framed under S. 307, IPC but were convicted under Ss. 324/323 read with S. 34, IPC. Whereas, Nachhattar Singh was held guilty of an offence punishable under S. 324, IPC, Bant Singh was held guilty under S. 324 with the aid of S. 34, IPC. They were ordered to suffer R.F. for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- each and in default thereof, they were to further suffer R.I. For three months. Bant Singh was further sentenced under S. 323, IPC to undergo R.I. for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 200/-, in default whereof, he was to further undergo R.I. for two months whereas Nachhattar Singh was sentenced under S. 323 read with S. 34 of the IPC to undergo R.I. for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 200/- and in default thereof to further undergo R.I. for two months. Against their acquittal under S. 307, IPC. the State has filed Crl. Appeal No. 318-DBA of 1992. While acquitting Nachhattar Singh and Bant Singh under S. 307, IPC and convicting them under Ss. 324/323/34, IPC, as described above, learned Addl. Sessions Judge passed some disparaging remarks against Dr. S. S. Malik. Medical Officer, Civil Hospital, Bhatinda, who appeared as PW 1 in support of the prosecution version. Dr. S. S. Malik has filed Crl. Misc. No. 9788-M of 1991 for expunging the remarks. By this order, thus, we propose to dispose of Crl. Appeal No. 318-DBA of 1992. preferred by the State of Punjab against Nachhattar Singh and Bant Singh for their acquittal under S. 307, IPC as also Crl. Appeal No. 473-SB of 1990 preferred by Nachhattar Singh and Bant Singh against their conviction under Ss. 324/323/34, IPC in the manner fully detailed above as also Crl. Misc. No. 9788-M of 1991 preferred by Dr. S. S. Malik.

2. Coming first to the State appeal, it shall be seen that the controversy is in a very narrow compass. The fate of this appeal is almost entirely dependent upon medical evidence. Dr. S. S. Malik appeared as PW. 1 and deposed that on June 25, 1991 at 12-30 a.m. (night) he had medically examined Gursewak Singh son of Nachhattar Singh and found following injuries on his person :-

"1. Incised wound 8 cms x 11/2 cms on the right side of skull. The wound was horizontally placed and starting from back of right car, going to the occipital region. Under lying bone was fractured. Fresh. bleeding was present.

2. Contusion 5 Cms x 2 Cms on the left side and upper part of chest. Advised X-ray.

3.Abrasion 1 cm x 1 cm on the left side of neck..

4.Swelling 3 cms x 3 cms on the medial aspect of left knee joint."

3. Injury No. 1 was declared dangerous to life while injury No. 2, after opinion of X-ray, and injuries 3 and 4 were declared simple. Injury No. 1 was caused by sharp edged weapon whereas injuries 2, 3 and 4 were caused by blunt weapon. Probable duration of the injuries was within six hours. B. P. was unrecordable, pulse was unrecordable. Patient was irritable and unconscious and pupils were normal. On June 27, 1989, PW 1 sent a supplementary report to the SHO, PS Kotwali Bhatiada as advised by Dr. Hardev Singh, Senior Medical Officer, Civil Hospital, Bhatinda, mentioning therein that in continuation of his earlier MLR No. 34/SSm/89 of Gursewak Singh dated June 25, 1989 and injury No. 1-X-ray skull was advised to see any fracture and the opinion about the nature of this injury was to be given after receipt of X-ray report. After a month i.e. on July 25, 1989 he was asked to declare the nature of injury No. 1 by ASI Babu Ram, Police Station Cantt. Bhatinda and on that he had requested the Senior Medical Officer as follows :-

"Kindly, as an enquiry is pending against me in this case, so please, constitute a Board far expert opinion".

The