IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT INDORE BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PREM NARAYAN SINGH th ON THE 13 OF JULY, 2023 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 5551 of 2022 BETWEEN:-

THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH STATION HOUSE OFFICER THROUGH P.S. BADNAWAR (MADHYA PRADESH)

.....APPELLANT (BY SHRI SANTOSH SINGH THAKUR,DY. GA FOR STATE/APPELLANT )

AND

1. DILEEP S/O GANPAT BHURIYA, AGED ABOUT 32 Y E A R S , OCCUPATION: LABOUR GRAM- KANKRAJ,TEHSIL-BADNAWAR (MADHYA PRADESH)

2. BHAWAR S/O GANPAT BHURIYA, AGED ABOUT 38 YE A R S , OCCUPATION: MAJDURI GRAM KANKRAJ, TEHSIL BADNAWAR (MADHYA PRADESH)

.....RESPONDENTS (BY SHRI ANUPAM CHOUHAN, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENTS)

Reserved On: 06.07.2023 Delivered On 13.07.2023 This criminal appeal coming on for judgment this day, with the consent of parties, heard finally and the court passed the following:

JUDGMENT

With consent of the parties heard finally.

1. This criminal appeal under Section 378 of Cr.P.C. has been filed by the appellant/State being aggrieved by the judgment dated 03.02.2020passed by the learned JMFC, Badnawar District Dhar in RCT No.04/2017 whereby the Signature Not Verified respondents have been acquitted from the offence under Sections 294, 325, 325/34 & 506(II) of IPC.

2. Learned counsel for the appellant/State contended that the trial Court has erred in law and facts in disbelieving the statement of Kalu (PW-1)/ injured. The statement of Kalu is corroborated by the medical testimony of Dr. R.S. Jaat (PW-7). The testimony of both the witnesses has not been considered properly by the trial Court. Kalu (PW-1), Dashrath (PW-2) and Shyamubai (PW-3) have supported the case of the prosecution. As such, the trial court has erred in law and facts in acquitting the respondents from the charges under Sections 294, 325, 325/34 and 506 of IPC.

3. Per contra, counsel for the respondents has supported the findings of the learned trial Court; however, during the course of arguments, he has alternatively prayed that if this Court arrives at a conclusion of conviction, looking to the period already lapsed during trial faced by the respondents, the respondents may be punished for only fine amount.

4. Since all offenes are bailable, this appeal is maintainable under Section

378(2)(b) of Cr.P.C. In view of rival submissions, the record of trial Court has been perused.

5. Having gone thorough the record, it is found that the injured Kallu PW-

1 has vividly supported the prosecution case in his examination in chief and clearly adverted that accused persons Dilip and Bhanwar had beaten him and due to which, he had sustained injures at back and chest. Certainly, there are some omissions regarding the incident, but they are not going to the root of the case. The case is well supported by PW-2 Damru and Shaymubai PW-3 and their examination in chief has not been controverted in their cross-examination.

Signature Not Verified

6. Learned counsel for the respondent expostulated that when there are two views regarding conviction or acquittal possible, the Court should adopt the view which is in favour of accused persons. The view of learned defense counsel is having its importance, nevertheless, when the case is well backed by injured as well as eye-witnesses and medical testimony, the view of acquittal has no probability. That apart, the status of injured witness is well recognized in criminal jurisprudence. At this juncture, the following ratio laid by Hon'ble Apex court rendered in the case of Bhajan Singh @ Harbhajan Singh and others Vs. State of Haryana AIR 2011 SC 2552 is condign to quote here as under:-

"The testimony of an injured witness has its own relevancy and efficacy as he has sustained injuries at the time and place of occurrence and this lends support to his testimony that he was present at the time of occurrence. Thus, the testimony of an injured witness is accorded a special status in law. Such a witness comes with a built-in guarantee of his presence at the scene of the crime and is unlikely to spare his actual assailant(s) in o