The prosecution has the burden of proving guilt beyond reasonable doubt, and the court must consider a witness's testimony as a whole, separating reliable evidence from unreliable.

JUDGMENT :

1. List has been revised.

2. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.

3. The present Criminal Appeal under Section 374(2) of the Cr.P.C. has been filed against the judgment and order dated 23.07.2008 passed by learned Additional Special Sessions Judge/S.C. & S.T. Act/F.T.C.-4, Court No.13, Sultanpur, in Special Sessions Trial No.9/2007 "State vs. Jagesar Verma and Others", arising out of Case Crime No./Court Case No.5/2005, relating to Police Station-Sangrampur, District-Sultanpur, by which the appellants have been convicted under Section 323/34 with a fine of Rs.300/- and in default of payment of fine two months imprisonment.

4. The prosecution case in brief is that the complainant as well as accused persons are resident of same village. There was some old enmity in between the parties. On 22.06.2005 at about 7:00 A.M., the accused persons were building a chappar on the agricultural land of the complainant, when the complainant stopped them from placing a chappar in her land, the accused persons got annoyed and started abusing with caustic words and caste language, and thereafter, when the complainant raised her voice they started beating the complainant, her husband and daughter-in-law. On hue and cry, the other family members reached the spot and tried to save them, they were also beaten brutally by the accused persons. The report regarding aforesaid incident was lodged on 27.09.2005 after moving an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. before the concerned Magistrate, which was registered as Court Case No.05/2005 under Section 323, 504 and 506 and Section 3(1)(x) of SC/ ST Act and charge sheet was submitted by the Investigating Officer under Sections 323, 504 and 506 I.P.C. and Section 3(1)(x) of SC/ST Act on 29.10.2005.

5. Charges were framed by the court below under Sections 323/34 and 506(2) I.P.C. and Section 3(1)(x) of SC/ST Act. The accused persons denied charges and sought trial.

6. Prosecution examined the informant/complainant, Ram Lali, as P.W.1, who reiterated the allegations mentioned in the FIR and she proved the lodging of first information report. Munnu Lal was produced as P.W.-2, who stated that on the date of incident he was present at the spot but in his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C., he clearly stated that one day before the date of incident, he went to Ganga river to take bath and returned on the date of incident at about 7:30 A.M. i.e. after the alleged incident, and further he has not received any injuries in the alleged incident, which clearly shows that he was not present at the spot at the time of alleged incident. P.W.-3, Phool Kali, testified before the court that appellants had brutally beaten the complainant and her family members, she further stated that she tried to save his Father-in-Law and Mother-in-law but the accused persons beat her also, she also admitted that a case is pending regarding the land in dispute. P.W.-4, Dr. Vinod Singh, stated that he has prepared the injury report of P.W.1 and P.W.3 and also stated that they complained about pain in their body on the date of incident but the time of injury was about 6:20 A.M. and 6:00 A.M on 23.06.2005 and further stated that normally an injury caused by lathi blow leaves mark on the body for two weeks but when P.W.1 came for examination, there was no mark of lathi blow nor any kind of mark was seen on her body and in respect of P.W.3 he stated that during the course of examination, the colour of injury caused to her was blue that gives an impression that the injury was not new. P.W.5 Ramhit Saroj, the inscribe of F.I.R., did not state anything to falsify the story of prosecution. P.W.6 Aditya Kumar Shukl, Investigating Officer, stated that on the basis of complaint made by the complainant and statements of her family members, he visited the site and created site plan and he further stated that the land in dispute belongs to the appellants for which they have filed an application before the Sud Divisional Engineer but the same