The main legal point established in the judgment is the principle of presumption of innocence, the burden of proof on the prosecution to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt, and the careful scrutiny of evidence to separate reliable and unreliable testimony.

JUDGMENT :

1. List of cases has been revised and the case is being taken up in the revised call for hearing.

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

3. The instant Criminal Appeal under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C. has been moved on behalf of the appellant against the Judgment and Order dated 11.12.2013 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.7, Sitapur in Sessions Trial No.161 of 2008, arising out Case Crime No.107 of 2001, lodged at Police Station-Laharpur, District-Sitapur, whereby the appellant has been convicted under Sections 147, 148, 323/149 and 325/149 and sentenced under Section 147 I.P.C. for two years simple imprisonment and fine of Rs.1,000/-and in default of payment of fine, two months additional simple imprisonment, under Section 148 I.P.C. for three years simple imprisonment and fine of Rs.1,000/-and in default of payment of fine, two and a half months simple imprisonment, under Section 323/149, one years simple imprisonment and fine of Rs.500/-and in default of payment of fine, fifteen days' simple imprisonment and under Section 325/149 I.P.C. for three years simple imprisonment and fine of Rs.2,000/-and in default of payment of fine, three months simple imprisonment.

4. The prosecution case in brief is that on 29.04.2001, the complainant Mukhtar Ahmad submitted a written report to the Police Station Laharpur, District Sitapur, wherein it had been stated that there was some old enmity in between the parties with respect to a Gramin Samaj Land, on which the accused persons were allegedly constructing a wall, which was not permissible. In this regard, the complainant made several complaints to the concerned authorities and the accused persons were stopped from constructing a wall over the said land. On the date of incident at about 07:00 P.M., the concerned officials visited the site and removed the boundary wall illegally constructed by the accused persons, thereafter, the concerned officials returned but this action of the concerned officials agitated the accused persons against the complainant. Thereafter, the accused persons reached the house of the complainant armed with deadly weapons and started abusing the complainant with caustic words, when the complainant stopped them to do so, they started beating the complainant and his nephew. In the said incident, the nephew of the complainant fell unconscious and the complainant also received severe injuries.

5. On the basis of written report, submitted by the first informant, the first information report was lodged as Case Crime No.107 of 2001, under Sections 147, 148, 323, 504, 506 and 308 at Police Station Laharpur, District Sitapur.

6. The case was handed over to Investigating Officer, who visited the place of occurrence, recorded the statement of the witnesses and prepared the site plan and after completing the investigation, submitted the charge sheet against the appellants under Sections 323, 504, 506, 308 and 325 I.P.C.

7. On the basis of Charge-sheet appellant-accused were summoned by the Court and charges were framed against them under Sections 323/34, 325/34, 308/34, 504 and 506 I.P.C. The appellants-accused denied the charges and claimed to be tried.

8. Prosecution in order to substantiate the charges against appellants-accused examined Mukhtar Ahmad, the complainant as P.W.-1, Raees as P.W.-2, Munnawar as P.W.-3, Dr. M.H. Usmani as P.W.-4, Constable Umesh Kumar Dixit as P.W.-5, S.I. Retd. Ganga Ram Gautam as P.W.-6 and Dr. Sant Raj as P.W.-7.

9. After closing of the evidence, statement of accused/appellants under section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded by the trial court explaining the entire evidence and other circumstances, in which the appellants denied the prosecution story and the entire prosecution story was said to be wrong and concocted.

10. No witness in defence was adduced by the accused persons before the trial court.

11. After having heard the rival submissions of parties, the Trial Court found appellants-accused guilty, th