JUDGEMENT

In this criminal appeal, the judgment passed on 6.6.2007 by Fifth Additional Sessions Judge, Sagar, in Sessions Trial No.312/2005 has been challenged by the appellants (hereinafter referred to as “accused”) under which accused Parmu, Bandhu and Halke were convicted of the offence of Section 147 IPC and were sentenced to three months rigorous imprisonment while accused Bhagauni, Hardas and Babulal alias Babu were convicted of the offence of Section 148 IPC and were sentenced to six months rigorous imprisonment. All the accused persons were also convicted of the offence of Section 323/149 IPC for causing simple injury to Nanhibai and were sentenced to six months rigorous imprisonment, of Section 324/149 IPC for causing injury to Devi and were sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for one year and were also convicted for the offence of Section 325/149 (two counts) IPC for causing grievous injuries to Devi and Parmu and were sentenced to one year rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.500/- for each count with a default clause to undergo three months rigorous imprisonment, in case of non-payment of fine.

2. Brief facts relevant for the decision of this criminal appeal are that on 12.3.2005 at around 8:00 a.m. complainant Devi was going to the forest along with his father Parma; they were in their bullock-cart; near the place of incident, the accused persons arrived carrying iron-rod, spear, lathi, katarna, etc.; they were hurling obscene abuses; Devi was given a blow on head by accused Bhagauni with katarna, on left wrist by accused Halke with lathi, on left side of head by Babu Patel with iron rod, in right hand elbow by Bandu with lathi;

Parmu Patel gave a blow on head of his father Parma with tabal; his mother reached there and tried to rescue them but she was assaulted by Hardas Patel with lathi and ballam and also by Bandhu Patel with lathi causing her injuries on hands and back; villagers Surendra Yadav and Purushottam Yadav, who were in the vicinity, arrived there and rescued them; the accused were giving obscene abuses and life threats while leaving the place; on the same day, FIR was registered against accused persons and the investigation was held. After the filing of charge-sheet, the trial followed and the impugned judgment was passed under which the accused persons were held guilty as aforesaid and were also acquitted of the offence of Sections 294, 307 and 506-B IPC.

3. The grounds raised in this criminal appeal are that the learned trial court committed error in holding the accused persons guilty of an offence, which was not proved by the testimony of any independent witness; according to medical evidence, Parma and Devi did not sustain any grievous injury; Surendra (P.W.3) and Purushottam (P.W.5), who were allegedly the eyewitnesses and the rescuers, did not support the prosecution story; the evidence of prosecution was inconsistent about the identity of person who informed the police about the incident; a cross-case was registered against the complainant side for the same incident which was pending in Banda Court; the injured sustained injuries in an accident and this fact has been admitted even by injured Parma (P.W.2) and Nanhibai (P.W.4) that this case was registered for the reason that a cross-case was lodged against the complainant side; there were considerable contradictions, omissions and improvements in the testimony of prosecution witnesses. It is, therefore, prayed that the appeal should be allowed and the accused persons should be acquitted.

4. State has opposed the present appeal claiming that no interference is warranted either in the findings of conviction or the sentence passed against the accused persons.

5. This court had referred the matter for mediation but the report received from Mediator reveals that parties did not turn up for mediation proceedings.

Arguments only on behalf of State were submitted while the accused remained absent and failed to make any submission at the t