1. This appeal preferred by the accused-appellants has called in question the soundness of the judgment passed by learned 7th Additional Sessions Judge, Jabalpur in Sessions Trial No.853/93 dated 23.8.1996 and have been convicted for offence punishable under section 394 of IPC and both of them have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- each, in default of payment of fine, they have to suffer further six months’ imprisonment.

2. Facts which are necessary for disposal of this appeal are mentioned in the first information report which was lodged by complainant Raghunath Singh which reads as under :

^^eSa ckbZ dk cxhpk xyh uaEcj 1 edku uaEcj 980 esa jgrk g¡w esjh nokbZ dh nqdku iatkc us’kuy cSad ds lkeus gS vkt fnukad 27-9-1993 dks jkr djhc 10 cts nokbZ dh nqdku can dj vius ?kj vk jgk Fkk tSls gh ckbZ dk cxhpk xyh uaEcj 1] dkyh th ds eafnj ds lkeus vk;k rks cCyw [kVhd rFkk ,d yM+dk ftls ns[kdj eSa igpku ywaxk nksuksa ikl esa vk x, vkSj cksys ekjks eknj pksn dks iSlk Nhu yks vkSj iSls okyk cSx Nhuus dk iz;kl djus yxs fdarq eSusa cSx nksuksa gkFk ls idMs+ jgk] tc eSaus cSx ugha NksM+k rks nksuks us eq>s pkdw ls ekjus yxs ftlls esjs nksuksa tka?kksa esa ihNs rjQ pksVsa vkbZ gSa] eSaus cpkus dk iz;kl fd;k rks ck,a gkFk esa Hkh pkdw yxus ls pksV vk xbZ gS] ekjrs le; nsos’k flag pkSgku] y[kuiky] vHk; flag us ns[kk lquk gS] idM+us nkSM+s rks os nksuksa nkSM+dj Hkkx x,A**

3. The police took up the investigation and during the course of investigation they caught hold off the appellants. On information given by the appellant Babloo under section 27 of the Evidence Act knife, used during the incident were recovered in presence of witnesses. For identification of the appellant Sanju identification parade was also held; complainant rightly identified him. After completion of investigation challan was filed in competent Committal Court which in his turn committed the case to the Court of Sessions Jabalpur and finally it come for the trial before the learned trial Court.

4. On basis of record, learned trial Court framed charges against the appellants who abjured their guilt, so put to trial.

5. The prosecution, to prove its case, examined 6 witnesses including complainant Raghunath Singh and filed documents Ex.P-1 to P-9.

6. During the statements recorded under section 311 of CrPC, the accused persons denied all the facts which were put forth against them. The appellants claimed that they were falsely implicated in the crime. The defense does not choose to examine any evidence.

7. The learned trial Judge on the basis of ocular and documentary evidence placed before him, found the appellants guilty of the offence punishable under section 394 and imposed the sentence as mentioned hereinabove. However, acquitted the appellants from the charges punishable under section 397 of IPC. The respondent does not preferred appeal against the acquittal.

8. Shri A.K. Gupta, learned counsel for the appellants argued that the learned trial Court has erred in recording the appellants’ conviction on account of statement of Raghunath Singh whose evidence suffers from serious infirmities, and other independent witnesses have not supported the prosecution version. Learned counsel further submitted that venue of incident is not certain as well as there is difference between the medical and ocular evidence. Looking to the number of injuries, there is every possibility of false implication of the accused.

9. Shri B.P. Pandey, learned Deputy Government Advocate appearing for the State has supported the impugned judgment and conviction and contended that the sole evidence of complainant Basheer is sufficient to establish the charges against the appellant beyond any shadow of doubt, and as such the learned trial Court has rightly convicted the appellants.

10. The facts that complainant Raghunath Singh sustained injuries in the night hours on 27.9.1993 on account of incident were neither in dispute before the learned tr