The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for credible and consistent evidence to establish guilt in criminal cases, especially when deep-seated enmity and contradictions in witness statements are present.

( 1 ) HEARD learned counsel for the appellants and learned A. G. A.

( 2 ) THIS appeal arises out of an order and judgment convicting under Section 324/34, I. P. C. and sentencing the above appellants to R. I. for one year and a fine of Rs. 500. 00. In the default of payment of fine they were further directed to undergo R. I. for six months.

( 3 ) THE brief facts of the case are that the victim of the incident Jagdev was standing at the gate of his beda (gher) along with his servant Pargava. The appellants came there. Appellant Babua was armed with Barchi, Appellant Anil s/o Chhotey Lal, Ram Das s/o Ramadhin and Ram Naresh s/o Ram Das were armed with guns. Ramdas is the father of Babua and Ram Naresh appellants. Anil Kumar is alleged to be their khandani. The parties are collaterals. At about 4. 00 p. m. appellants appeared at the beda of informant Jagdev. It is further alleged that when Jagdev and Pargawa were running back first to enter their beda all the three appellants armed with firearms opened fire from their respective weapons. The victim was taken to his house from his beda and after getting the FIR transcribed by Sheocharan, Jagdev, proceeded along with the witnesses to the police station Tindwari. The report was registered there at 7. 30 p. m. on the basis of the written report Ext. Ka-1. The distance between the police station and the place of the incident is five miles. Jagdev allegedly was medically examined on 9-8-1981 at 11. 00 p. m. by PW 5 Dr. P. N. Nigam. He had sustained one wedge shaped punctured wound of entry measuring 1. 4 cm x 1. 00 cm x 12 cm over the lateral side of left thigh, 14 cm above from the knee joints. Edges lacerated and everted blood was oozing from the wound. Exit wound was noted 0. 8 cm x 0. 5 cm x 12 cm over the medial side of left thigh. 14 cm above from the knee joint. Edges lacerated and inverted blood was oozing from the wound. The injuries were found simple caused by sharp penetrating weapon.

( 4 ) THE appellants were convicted by the learned Sessions Judge believing the evidence of three prosecution witnesses namely Jagdev PW 1, Pargawa PW 2 his servant and PW 3 Tiruva.

( 5 ) APART from these three witnesses the prosecution has also examined PW 4 H. C. Ali Hasan who had received the FIR and prepared the check report etc. Dr. P. N. Nigam PW 5 had conducted the medial examination of injured Jagdev, Jay Dayal Singh, PW 6, is the Investigating Officer in this case. The defence has denied the prosecutions case altogether and alleged its involvement in the case on account of existing deep seated enmity with the informant and the witnesses.

( 6 ) SO far as the enmity is concerned, it is proved on record beyond any doubt. It is clearly admitted to all the witnesses that their relations were sore for the last -3-4 years. The evidence further indicates that the parties were involved in various civil and criminal litigation. The incidents of marpit on both sides had taken place in past. The conviction also resulted into some of those incidents. In the result the animosity between the parties undoubtedly was deep seated.

( 7 ) SO far as the witnesses are concerned, the criticism is that they are inimical and partisan. Their presence on the spot of at the relevant time is also highly doubtful. To evaluate this argument the evidence of these witnesses is to be closely examined. The reason behind this examination is the high degree of enmity between the parties.

( 8 ) IN the FIR the weapon of the assault is alleged to be Barchi as disclosed by PW 1. Barchi is round shape long pointed weapon and ballam is a weapon having sharp edges on both sides and pointed at its end. The informant PW 1 had stated that he was assaulted with the Barchi but then qualified it by saying whether this Barchi was long and pointed one and had four edges he could not see. Then stated probably it had four edges. He had further that he could not seewhether it was sharp on its sides This was the statement o