The duty of the prosecution to prove guilt, the presumption of innocence, and the careful assessment of witness testimony, especially that of hostile witnesses, are central legal principles established in the judgment.

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. As per report of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bahraich dated 11.12.2018, the appellant no.1 Itwari had already expired during pendency of this appeal, as such, the appeal on his behalf stands abated. This Court is proceeding in respect of appellant no.2 Nabi Ullaha, appellant no.3 Rafi Ullaha and appellant no.4 Mulzim.

4. The instant Criminal Appeal under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C. has been moved on behalf of the appellants against the order dated 30.07.1999 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bahraich in Sessions Trial No.327 of 1994, under Sections 323/34, 504, 506, 308/34 I.P.C., Police Station Risiya, District Bahraich, whereby appellants have been convicted and sentenced for six months rigorous imprisonment under Section 323/34 I.P.C., two years rigorous imprisonment under Section 506 I.P.C. and two years rigorous imprisonment under Section 308/34 I.P.C. All the sentenced were directed to be run concurrently.

5. The prosecution case in brief is that on 04.05.1993, the complainant, Abdul Mannan had given a written report in Police Station Risiya, District Bahraich wherein it had been stated that accused Itwari was fixing his son’s (Nabi Ullaha) marriage in the complainant’s family. The complainant’s relative asked the Itwari about his land and property, therefore, he told the truth. As such, the complainant’s relative denied for the marriage and due to this, Itwari got angry with relatives of the complainant. On the date of incident at about 07:00 A.M., when the uncle (Ashraf Ali) and brother (Ibrahim) of the complainant were coming from market, the accused persons caught them and abused them in filthy languages and even assaulted them with lathi and danda, as such, Ashraf Ali and Ibrahim got severely injured. Due to injury, Ibrahim got unconscious. On seeing the incident, the nearby villagers Aliullaha and Sabder Ali rescued the injured persons.

6. On the basis of written report, submitted by the first informant, Abdul Mannan, the first information report was lodged as Case Crime No.43 of 1993, under Sections 308, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. at Police Station Risiya, District Bahraich.

7. 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 308, 323 I.P.C.

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

9. Prosecution in order to substantiate the charges against appellants-accused examined P.W.-1 Ali Ullaha, an eye witness,, P.W.-2 Safder Ali, an eye witness, P.W.-3 Abdul Mannan, the complainant, PW-4 Head Moharrir Chhavi Lal, who had scribed the written complaint, PW-5 Ibrahim, the injured, P.W.-6 Ashraf Ali, the injured, P.W.-7 Dr. Dharmvir Kumar, who medically examined the injured, P.W.-8 Sub Inspector Satya Narain Tiwari, who investigated the case.

10. Apart from above oral evidences, the following documentary evidences were also marked as follows. Written report as Ex. Ka-1, Chik F.I.R. as Ex. Ka-3, Nakal G.D. as Ex. Ka-4, Injury Report of Ibrahim as Ex. Ka-5, Injury Report of Ashraf as Ex. Ka-6, Site Plan as Ex. Ka-7 and Charge Sheet as Ex. Ka-8.

11. 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.

12. In order to substantiate the defence case, accused appellants examined Mohley as D.W.-1 before the trial court.

13. After having h