JUDGEMENT

1. The present appeal has been filed by the appellant under Section 374 (2) of Cr.P.C. being aggrieved by the judgment dated 27.03.2002 passed by the Special Judge, S.C./ S.T. (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, in Special Case No. 189 /2000. By the impugned judgment, the appellant has been convicted for the offence under Section 341 of IPC and sentenced to fine of Rs.500/ and Section 325/34 of IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for one year and fine of Rs.1,000/- along with default stipulations. 2. The prosecution story, in brief is that on 24.08.99 at about 3 p.m., injured Kashiram was the way from the field to his house. At that time, it is alleged that the appellants with other co-accused (acquitted) intercepted him and took him to their house and beat him. Report of the incident was lodged at police station and injured was sent for medical examination.

According to the doctor, the injured received two incised injuries and one abrasion. Thereafter, injured was sent for X-ray examination. According to X-ray report, his left hand was fractured. Thereafter, police filed charge- sheet against the appellant before Special Judge, S.C./ S.T. (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Tikamgarh. The trial Court framed charges against the appellants, which were denied by the appellants. Thereafter, taking evidence, the trial Court found the appellants guilty and convicted them as mentioned above.

3. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the trial Court has erred in convicting the appellants. There is no evidence on record to prove that the appellants were guilty of the aforesaid offences. There are material omissions and contradictions in the statement of the prosecution witnesses.

The injured and the other prosecution witnesses are interested witnesses.

No independent witness has been produced by the prosecution. He prays that judgment of conviction and sentence be set aside and the appellants be acquitted. Alternatively, he submits that this case is of the year 1999 and appellants have been suffering since 1999 till today, so jail sentence of the appellants be set aside and they be given the benefit of Probation of Offender’s Act.

4. Learned counsel for the State supported the trial Court judgment and prayed for dismissal of the appeal.

5. The question for determination is whether the trial Court has wrongly convicted the appellants and whether appeal may be accepted.

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

7. After perusal of the record, it is found that Dr. K.P. Gupta (P.W.5) found 3 injuries on the body of injured P.W.1 Kashiram and P.W.7 Dr. K.R. Sahay, who conducted X-ray of left hand of injured found fracture of the left hand, therefore, considering the evidence of the injured and the doctor, it is found that on the date of the incident, injured sustained injuries and fractured his left hand.

8. Now the question arises whether the appellants caused injuries to the complainant Kashiram (P.W.1) with intention or voluntarily. 9. P.W.1 Kashiram stated in examination in chief that appellants assaulted him with axe and Fawda which caused him injuries on his body and he lodged FIR at police station. This witness was intact in his cross- examination. His evidence is supported by P.W.2 Manjubai. 10. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that no independent witness has supported the prosecution story. Both P.W.1 and P.W.2 are interested witnesses.

11. It is true that no independent witness has been examined by the prosecution. From perusal of the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2 it is evident that they denied all the suggestion given by the defence. They supported each other in cross-examination. F.I.R. was lodged by P.W.1 just after the incident. It is true that P.W.1 and P.W.2 are husband and wife respectively but their evidence cannot be discarded merely because they are interested witneses. In Smt. Dalbir Kaur Vs. State of Punjab; 1976 Cr.L.J. 418 (S