IMPORTANT POINT
Discrepancies in witness testimonies and medical evidence can lead to reasonable doubt, resulting in acquittal in criminal cases.

JUDGMENT:

K.Surender, J.

1. The appellants/A1 to A4 are questioning their conviction for the offences under Sections 307, 326, 324 r/w 34 IPC, vide judgment in S.C.No.171 of 2009 dated 21.06.2010 passed by the VII Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad.

2. Briefly, the case of P.W.1/defacto complainant is that all the appellants are residents of his area. In the year 2007 one Mukhtar (not examined) informed P.W.1 that the appellants forcibly took away his motor cycle, mobile phone and gold ring although he had cleared loan due to 1st appellant/A1. A1 and A2 are brothers and A3 and A4 are their cousins. P.W.1 settled the issue in between said Mukhtar and A1. The articles that were allegedly seized from Mukhtar were returned at the instance of P.W.1. Thereafter, on 13. 04.2007 between 10.30 p.m and 11.00 p.m, while P.W.1 was near Moin Cycle shop at Talabkatta, all the accused and three others attacked with iron rods, sticks and talwar. A1 attacked with a stick and beat him on the right leg. When he fell down, A1 attacked with sword on the head. A3 attacked P.W.1 with iron rod on left shoulder and other parts of the body. A2 beat P.W.1 with talwar and iron rod. A4 caught hold of P.W.1 when he was attacked by the other accused. Having witnessed the attack, P.W.3 tried to intervene, however, he was also attacked by the appellants and three others. P.Ws.1 and 3 went to Osmania General Hospital for treatment. Complaint was lodged on the very same day and immediately, Section 161 Cr.P.C statements were also recorded.

3. The Investigating Officer, having examined witnesses and effecting seizures which were MO1, wooden stick, MO2 sword and MOs3 and 4 iron rods, filed charge sheet against the appellants.

4. During the course of trial, P.W.1 (eye witness and injured), P.W.2 (eye witness), P.W.3 (eye witness and injured) supported the case of the case of the prosecution. P.Ws.4 and 5 who are witnesses to the scene of offence panchanama, deposed that panchanama and sketch were drafted in their presence by the police. However, P.Ws.6 and 7 who are witnesses to the seizures MOs.1 to 4 from the accused have turned hostile to the prosecution case.

5. Prosecution examined P.W.8, Doctor, who examined P.W.1 nearly four days after the incident and issued Ex.P10 wound certificate. PW.9 is the Casualty Medical Officer in Osmania General Hospital. He examined both PWs.1 and 3 within four hours of incident and gave Ex.P11, which is injury certificate of P.W.1 and Ex.P12 injury certificate of P.W.3.

6. Learned Sessions Judge, having considered the evidence on record, found that the appellants had in fact inflicted injuries on PW1 and 3, as narrated by them and accordingly convicted the accused.

7. Learned counsel appearing for the accused/appellants would submit that the version narrated by P.Ws.1 to 3 before the Court is totally different from what was stated in their Section 161 Cr.P.C examination. The exaggeration made before the Court was in fact adduced during the course of cross-examination of Investigating Officer (P.W.10). It is highly improbable that P.W.8 examined P.W.1 and found only two injuries, however, P.W.9, Doctor who examined P.W.1 found 8 injuries without any fractures. The wounds did not tally and injuries that are shown as fractures in Ex.P10 were not found in Ex.P11. Admittedly, the witnesses were on inimical terms with the accused. In view of the improvements and discrepancies in their evidence, the accused are entitled to acquittal.

8. On the other hand, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor would submit that the witnesses P.Ws.1 to 3 have narrated in detail, the overt acts of each of the accused. All the accused are known to P.Ws.1 to 3. The evidence clearly discloses that the appellants have attacked PW.1 with deadly weapons and when P.W.3 intervened, he was also assaulted. On the basis of injuries received by P.Ws.1 and 3, the trial Court had correctly come to a conclusion that the offence is one of attempting to commit murder