The evidence of a hostile witness can be considered to the extent it supports the prosecution case, and the genuineness of prosecution documents, when admitted by the defense, is admissible as substantive evidence.

JUDGMENT :

1. This criminal appeal has been preferred against the judgement and order dated 16.5.2006 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.2, Rampur in S.T. No.122 of 2001, P.S. G.R.P., District Rampur whereby the appellant has been convicted and sentenced to undergo two months rigorous imprisonment for the offence under Section 352 IPC, to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment for the offence under Section 342 IPC and to undergo seven years rigorous imprisonment for the offence under Section 307 IPC with a fine of Rs.2500/-, and in default thereof, to further undergo one year rigorous imprisonment.

2. The prosecution story, in nutshell, is that injured Meharban, the nephew of the informant Ghasita, was travelling in the train on 22.6.1999 alongwith his brother Salim, friend Tasleem and one another person and he entered into a reservation coach wherein some police personnel were present. Head Constable Vijay Singh asked him for ticket and when he replied that his ticket was with his friends, who were sitting in another coach, the accused started beating him and with intention to kill pushed him out of the running train and he sustained injuries. The informant came to know about the incident on 23.6.1999 and on his written report - Ext. A-2, F.I.R. Ext. A-1 was lodged on 24.6.1999 at 7.10 a.m. The injured was medically examined and after investigation charge sheet Ext. A-3 was submitted against the accused HC/198 Vijay Singh.

3. Injured was medically examined by the Emergency Medical Officer, District Hospital, Rampur on 23.6.1999 and, as mentioned in the impugned judgment, the doctor found injuries of lacerated wound, contusions on various parts of his body. He was also referred for x-ray and in the x-ray report of his left leg fracture shafts of both bones tibia and fibula was found and no adversity was discovered in his left thigh. Subsequently the injured was also checked-up by the Eye Surgeon Dr. Sandeep Mithal on 25.6.1999 as he had developed multiple lacerations on face and injury in the right eye and was not able to see anything from right eye and the Eye Surgeon found perforated injury in his right eye and his eye brows, eye ball and eye lid were swollen. It is also pertinent to mention here that when he was brought before the police and chitthi majrubi (a report from Police Station / Chauki whereby the injured is sent to Government Hospital for medical examination) was prepared, which is endorsed on the back page of injury report Ext. A-5, the police constable, who attended him also noted following injuries upon his body :

^^1- ck,a iSj ds ifj;k ls uhps o tka?k ij pksV [kwu vkywnk A

2- nkfgus gkFk dh dksguh ij pksV [kwu vkywnk A

3- ukd lkeus QVh gqà A

4- ekFks ij pksV [kwu vkywnk A**

4. Concerned Magistrate took the cognizance. The case being exclusively triable by Sessions Court, was committed to the Court of sessions.

5. Accused appeared before the trial court and charges under Sections 307, 352 and 342 IPC were framed against him. He denied the charges and claimed his trial.

6. The prosecution to bring home the charges against the accused relied upon oral as well as the documentary evidence.

7. In oral evidence prosecution examined in all three witnesses, namely, PW-1 Meharban, the injured witness, PW-2 Salim and PW-3 Tasleem, who were claimed to be eye witnesses of the incident.

8. In support of oral version, following documents were relied upon on behalf of the prosecution :

9. The genuineness of the prosecution documents has been admitted by the counsel for the accused - appellant.

10. After conclusion of evidence, the incriminating circumstances and evidence available on record were put to the accused in his s