Credible evidence of injured witnesses combined with medical corroboration can sustain a conviction despite inconsistencies in defense claims.

1. In this Criminal Revision Application, challenge is to the judgment and order dated 17.02.2015, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Yavatmal, in Criminal Appeal No. 07/2008, whereby the learned Additional Sessions Judge dismissed the appeal filed by the appellants/accused nos.1 and 2 against their conviction and sentence by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Yavatmal. Learned J.M.F.C., by the judgment and order dated 30.01.2008 had convicted accused nos.1 and 2 for the offences punishable under Section s 323 and 325 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code . Accused No.2 on conviction was released on probation on his furnishing a bond of good behaviour for two years. Accused no.1 was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 325 read with Section 34 of the IPC and in default of payment of fine, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months. He was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two months and to pay a fine if Rs.500/- for the offence punishable under Section 323 read with Section 34 of the IPC and in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 15 days.

2. The facts are as follows :

PW1 Sushila Atram is the informant. The informant and the accused are neighbours. The incident in question occurred on 09.12.2006. On previous day i.e. 08.12.2006, the informant and her husband had a heated discussion on some subject. Husband of the informant was abusing her. The accused no.1 was passing by the road in front of the house of the informant. He thought that the husband of the informant abused him. A quarrel took place between them. Accused no.1 gave kicks and fist blows to the husband of the informant.

3. It is stated that on 09.12.2006 at about 10.00 am, in order to take revenge of the quarrel took place on the previous night, accused nos.1 and 2 came to the house of the informant. The informant was cooking food. Her husband was taking meals. Accused no.1 came there with a wooden rafter in his hand. He assaulted the husband of the informant with a wooden rafter. He sustained injury to his leg, shoulder and left hand wrist. The informant tried to intervene. Accused No.1 inflicted a blow with a wooden rafter on her left hand. She sustained injury. The informant and her husband went to Yavatmal rural police station and lodged the report. After recording their report, they were sent for medical examination.

4. PW6 Dr. Rama Bajoriya examined them. The medical examination revealed that the informant had sustained fracture to her left hand. After completion of the investigation, charge-sheet was filed against accused nos.1 and 2. The prosecution, in order to bring home the guilt against the accused, examined eight witnesses. Learned Magistrate on appreciation of the evidence found that the said evidence is sufficient to prove the guilt of the accused. On conviction, accused no.1 was awarded substantive sentence as above. Accused no.2 was released on probation. The accused persons filed an appeal against the judgment and order in the Sessions Court at Yavatmal. Learned Additional Sessions Judge, on re-appreciation of the evidence, found that there was no substance in the appeal and ultimately dismissed the appeal. Accused no.1 is, therefore, before this Court in revision.

5. I have heard Mr. Mahesh Rai, learned advocate for the applicant/accused and Mrs. M. H. Deshmukh, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the non-applicant/State. Perused the record and proceedings.

6. Learned advocate for the applicant/accused submitted that there are inconsistencies