IMPORTANT POINT
Testimony from interested witnesses can be sufficient for conviction if corroborated by medical evidence, and independent witnesses are not mandatory.

JUDGMENT :

HIRDESH, J.

1. This appeal has been filed by appellant under section 374(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code against the judgment dated 29-4-2004 passed in Sessions Trial No. 30/2000 by Ist Additional Sessions Judge Sehore by which, appellant has been convicted under section 325 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo RI for 1 year with fine of Rs. 10,000/- with default stipulation.

2. Prosecution story in nutshell is that on 18-11-1996 at 7:00 PM while the complainant Akhilesh Rathore was walking on road, the appellant was teasing him by calling him Teli. The complainant went and told his father, who in turn went to the house of his neighbour, namely, to sort out the matter, when a fight ensued which resulted in an injury on the person of the complainant, due to alleged hit by stick attributed to the appellant. Complainant filed a FIR before the Police Station, Kotwali, District Sehore and a case under section 307 of Indian Penal Code was registered under crime No. 679/1999. Police referred the injured for medical examination and after due investigation filed charge sheet before the competent Court.

3. Trial Court framed charge against the accused/appellant and appellant/accused denied the charge then after taking evidence trial Court found that accused caused grievous injuries to the Akhilesh PW-1 thereafter appellant was convicted under section 325 of Indian Penal Code as mentioned above.

4. Appellant/accused challenges the aforesaid conviction and sentence on the ground that trial Court failed to see that there is no evidence on record to prove that accused was guilty. He submitted that prosecution witnesses are relative witnesses and prosecution failed to produce the independent witness, medical witness not corroborate the eye witness PW-1 and doctor. He further submitted that there are so many omissions and contradictions has been found in the testimony of prosecution witnesses. Appellant and complainant have enmity therefore, Akhilesh lodged FIR against the appellant. Trial Court erred in holding the appellant guilty therefore, counsel for the appellant prays for setting aside the conviction and sentence of appellant, and he be acquitted from the charges.

5. Learned counsel for the State has supported the trial Court judgment and prays for dismissal of this appeal.

6. Question of determination is whether the trial Court has wrongly convicted the accused and whether appeal may be accepted?

7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

8. First question arises whether PW-1 (Akhilesh) sustained injuries on his body on the date of incident i.e. on 18-11-1996. On this point, PW-1 Akhilesh in his examination-in-chief stated that he received injuries on his body on the incident date. Dr. R.K. Gupta stated in his examination-in-chief that he examined the Akhilesh on his hospital on 18-11-1996 and found injuries on his head and in right elbow. Dr. Ajit Sewkani (PW-12) also examined Akhilesh and stated that he found injuries on his nose, ear and on head. Considering the evidence of medical expert and PW-1 Akhilesh, it is found that on incident date PW-1 received injuries which was grievous in nature.

9. Now second question arises whether these injuries are caused by the appellant was warranted to complainant. PW-1 stated in his cross-examination that on incident date on 18-11-1996 was teasing him by calling him ‘Teli’ when his father went to house of neighbour to sort out the matter then appellant assaulted him by stick due to which he received injuries on his head, hand, ear and nose. PW-2 Hariram who is the father of PW-1 also supported the substantial part of statement of PW-1. PW-3 (Usha Rathore) and PW-5 (Kaluram) also supported the evidence of PW-1 (Akhilesh). Considering the examination of PW-1, 2 and 3 PW-5, it was found that they were intact in their cross-examination and they denied all the suggestions given by the defence lawyer.

10. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that all the prosec