A conviction cannot be sustained based on testimony that is inherently improbable and contradicted by material facts; where prosecution evidence is marked by unexplained delays, non-production of primary evidence, and significant inconsistencies, the benefit of the doubt must be extended to the accused.

*****

SURYA PARTAP SINGH, J.

A trial conducted by the Court of learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate Tohana, hereinafter being referred as ‘trial Court’ only, culminated into judgment of conviction dated 22.12.2007 and as a consequence thereof, vide order on quantum of sentence dated 24.12.2007, following sentences were awarded to the petitioners/convicts, hereinafter being referred to as ‘petitioners’ only:-

Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

2. Aggrieved of the abovementioned judgment of conviction and order of sentence, hereinafter being referred as impugned judgment/order, the petitioners preferred an appeal in the Court of Sessions. The abovementioned appeal was dealt with by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge Fatehabad, hereinafter being referred to as ‘Appellate Court’ only. However, the abovementioned appeal did not find favour in the Court of Sessions and by virtue of judgment dated 15.01.2011, the same was dismissed.

3. Briefly stating the facts emerging from record are that the abovementioned FIR came into being at the instance of ‘Sadhu Ram’ hereinafter being referred as ‘complainant’ only. It is the case of the prosecution that the complainant was admitted to the Government Hospital, Hisar for treatment of the injuries, suffered by him, and with regard to his admission, an information-memo was received in the Police Station. As per prosecution acting upon the abovesaid information Head Constable Manphool Singh visited the hospital and after obtaining the opinion of doctor with regard to fitness of injured/complainant, recorded the statement of complainant.

4. It is further case of the prosecution that in his abovementioned statement, it was stated by the complainant that about 15 years ago, an altercation had taken place between him (complainant) and ‘Ram Sarup’ (petitioner No.1 herein). According to complainant, although the matter was settled in a community meeting (Panchayat), but the petitioner No.1 was nursing a grudge against the complainant. As per complainant, on account of abovementioned grudge, on 02.07.1997, at about 08:00 pm, when he along with his nephew ‘Rajender’ was going towards his fields, all the three petitioners, namely Ram Sarup, Suresh @Shesha and Subhash, launched an assault upon him. According to complainant, at that point of time, Ram Sarup was armed with a gandasi (pole axe) and Suresh @Sheshha with a lathi (bamboo stick). It was further stated by the complainant that in the abovementioned assault, he was caught hold by the petitioner No.3 and thereafter one lathi blow was inflicted by the petitioner No.2 on his left knee, followed by a blow with gandasi, by the petitioner No.1, on the elbow of his left hand, and then third blow by petitioner No.2 with lathi on his right hand. It was also stated by the complainant that the petitioner No.3 had thrashed him with the help of kicks and punches and thereafter, while extending threats to take revenge, all the assailants fled from the spot.

5. To discharge its burden with regard to charge framed against the appellants, the prosecution in the instant case