The evidentiary value of the testimony of injured eye-witnesses and close relatives, and the principle that minor contradictions and omissions do not affect the core of the prosecution case.

JUDGMENT :

ANJULI PALO, J.

1. Appellants have filed this appeal being aggrieved by the judgment dated 22-6-2009 passed by the Additional Judge to the Court of First Additional Session Judge, District Tikamgarh in Session Trial No. 156/2007 whereby the appellants have been convicted and sentenced as under:-

2. In brief, the prosecution case is that on 1-4-2007 at about 10:00 am at village Purakhera, when the complainant-Chauda (PW-1) along with his wife Hirabai (since deceased), daughter Bhuvan Bai and son Dayaram had gone to the well for taking bath, appellants came there and assaulted them. The complainant, his son Dayaram and daughter Bhuvan Bai sustained injuries while his wife Hira Bai sustained grievous injuries. Later Hira Bai succumbed to the injuries and died. FIR was lodged by her husband complainant-Chauda (PW-1) at Police Station Kudila, District Tikamgarh. Police registered offence under section 307 and 304/34 of Indian Penal Code. After investigation, charge-sheet was filed under section 302/34, 325/34 and 323/34 of the Indian Penal Code against the appellants. Co-accused Binda has been tried by the juvenile Court.

3. After committal of the case, learned trial Court framed charges under section 302 in alternate section 302/34, section 325 in alternate section 325/34 and section 323 in alternate section 323/34 of the Indian Penal Code against the appellants. Appellants abjured guilt and pleaded “innocence.” Defence witness Ganesh Singh (DW-1) has been examined by the appellants to establish that at the time of incident they were working at Delhi.

4. Learned Trial Court relied upon the testimony of complainant Chouda (PW-1) and other injured eye-witnesses Bhuvan Bai (PW-8) and Dayaram (PW-7). Trial Court also relied upon the testimony of Doctor R.S. Rana (PW-12) who proved the injuries of the deceased and injured eye-witnesses. After considering the entire evidence at length, learned trial Court convicted the appellants under sections 302/34, 325/34 and 323/34 and sentenced them as mentioned above.

5. Appellants have challenged the findings of the Trial Court on the grounds that the trial Court has not properly appreciated the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and has ignored the material contradictions and omissions in the statement of the prosecution witnesses. Appellants claimed that the trial Court erred in convicting the appellants merely relying on the statements of the interested eye-witnesses Chouda (PW-1), Dayaram (PW-7) and Bhuvan Bai (PW-8). Appellants have prayed for setting aside the impugned judgment and they be acquitted from the charges levelled against them.

6. Heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the record.

7. Now the question that arise is “whether the appellants are liable to be acquitted from the charges levelled against them.”

8. Chouda (PW-1) is the husband of the deceased Hira Bai. In paragraph 15 of the FIR, he has stated that at the time of incident, he was present along with his wife Hira Bai, daughter Bhuvan Bai, and son Dayaram. He further stated that when they reached sanwahar for taking bath, the appellants came there and started a fight (marpeet). They inserted a stick in the private parts of deceased Hira Bai and assaulted Bhuvan Bai and Dayaram with wooden sticks and axe. Due to the fatal injuries caused by an axe on the neck, Hira Bai died. Vimlesh reported the incident to the police. Police reached at the spot and took the injured persons with them. Thereafter, the injured persons were sent to Tikamgarh Hospital for treatment and medical examination. In