The main legal point established in the judgment is that medical evidence is not always necessary to prove the charge under Section 323 I.P.C., and intentional insult is essential to establish the offense under Section 504 I.P.C. The judgment also emphasizes the provisions of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, in extending the benefit of probation of good conduct to the accused.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist and learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

2. Instant Criminal appeal has been preferred against judgment and order dated 03.06.2014 passed by learned Sessions Judge Court No. 8 Barabanki in Criminal Appeal No. 88/20213, whereby the judgment and order dated 23.08.2013 passed by learned trial court convicting the appellants from charge under Sections 323, 504 I.P.C. and releasing them on probation of good conduct has been affirmed. The revisionist has assailed the judgment and orders of both the courts below the Trial Court as well as the appellate court in present Criminal Revision.

3. The factual matrix of the case in brief of that the informant Abdul Majid lodged a non-cognizable report before Police Station Kotwali Nagar, District Barabanki by oral information to the effect that the accused persons Pratap Narayan, Tej Narayan, Radhey Shayam and Pawan Kumar asked to dig the platform (chabutra) of the informant, when he objected the accused persons assaulted him by sticks, his son Mohd. Siraj ran to save him on cries of his father but the accused assaulted him also. The co-villagers rushed to the spot on commotion and saved the informant and his son and they also saw the incident. The police investigated the case by orders of the other court dated 14.06.2002 passed under Section 155 sub-section 2 Cr.P.C. and submitted charge-sheet against named accused persons. The accused Pratap Narayan died during the pendency of the trial and the trial was abated against him. The prosecution examined PW. 1 Abdul Majid (injured), PW. 2 Rajendra and P.W. 3 Mohd. Siraj (injured) for the prosecution evidence to support NCR version in their testimony, and statements of the accused persons were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. they denied the accusation made against them and stated that they were falsely implicated in the case due to enmity of litigation; accused Tej Narayan and Radhey Shyam stated that they are running a shop of cement the informant Abdul Mazid had borrowed cement for constructing his house and when the accused demanded their money the informant side lodged false and concocted case against the accused persons by creating false injuries. Accused Pawan Kumar stated that he has only been implicated in the present case due to reason of being brother of accused Radhey Shyam.

4. Learned Trial Court observed after perusal of evidence on record in the light of accusation made in NCR that incised wound was found on person of injured Abdul Majid, Mohd. Siraj. The allegations in the statements of the witnesses that the accused persons had assaulted the injured with sharp edged weapons is not found trustworthy, the injuries of these injured persons are in the nature of lacerated wound and contusion, which is normally caused by some hard and blunt object like lathi. The witnesses Abdul Majid and Mohd. Siraj have stated that accused Pratap Narayan and Radhey Shyam and Pawan has beaten lathi. It also appears that Pratap Narayan and his two sons had caused the incident and the name Tej Narayan is falsely added in prosecution version.

5. Learned trial court found the injuries of injured Abdul Majid, Mohd Siraj of simple in nature. As per the injury report but observed that the concerned medical officer has not been examined to prove the injury report, thus these injury reports are not admissible in evidence for want of requisite proof. However, even if, the injury reports are not admissible, the charge under Section 323 I.P.C is proved by evidence of PW-1 and PW-3, this is not in every case that injuries of the injured are to be proved by evidence of medical witness in a case under Section 323 I.P.C. which defines simple hurt and this offence can also be proved by evidence of eye witnesses. Learned trial court also observed that Section 504 I.P.C. is also made out against the said accused persons. The learned trial court acquitted the accused Tej Narayan of charge under Section