A conviction under IPC Section 326 requires reliable evidence; hostile witnesses undermine the prosecution, leading to acquittal.

ORAL JUDGMENT .

1] Heard Ms. Bhatiya, learned appointed counsel for the appellant and Mr. Chutke, learned APP for the respondent/State.

2] The appeal challenges the judgment dated 02.01.2014 rendered by the learned Sessions Judge, Gondia. The appellant has been convicted under Section 326 of the I.P.C and sentenced to suffer R.I. for 4 years and to pay fine of Rs. 5000/-, in default of payment of fine, S.I. for 6 months.

3] The incident is alleged to have taken place on 18.06.2009, when the complainant/PW-1 Sunanda, who is the sister- in-law of the accused, claims that at about 9.00 a.m., the accused Shamrao, who resided in separate room in the same house, suspecting that the complainant was instrumental in the wife of the accused leaving him, assaulted the complainant first by a Trishul (Trident) on her right knee, which was caught hold of by the complainant. It is thereafter alleged that the accused threw chilly powder on the complainant and assaulted her by scissor on her right hand, chest and stomach, as a result of which she suffered injuries, PW-3 - Prakash Sewatkar (page 75), the neighbour, is claimed to have seen the incident and taken the complainant/PW-1 Sunanda to KTS Hospital, Gondia, where she claims to have been admitted for about a month. The complainant/PW-1 Sunanda further submits that after gaining consciousness, report was given to the police, which is at Exh.57 (page 71). Thereafter the matter was investigated into by PW-6/Dinesh Hage, the I.O., who has made the seizure of the said weapons. The complainant/PW-1 Sunanda was also referred to the Doctor, PW-7/Archana Balsaraf, who examined her and gave a report as to her injuries at Exh.85 (page 143). The accused was arrested on 18.06.2009 and was bailed out on 25.01.2010 and has suffered imprisonment for six months.

4] The prosecution has examined as many as 7 witnesses, which are as under:

5] In the instant matter, PW-2/ Ranwat Mahagu Lilahare and PW-3/ Prakash Sewatkar have turned hostile. PW-4/ Raju Indal Chavan has been examined for the seizure of blood stained clothes of the complainant and is claimed to have proved Exh.61, the seizure memorandum in respect of the same, however, in the cross examination, he admits that the police had shown the blouse to him at the relevant time and he was not aware from where the same was brought by the police. He further admits that the police had not read over the contents of Exh.61 to him. His cross examination also indicates that Sunanda, the PW-1 is the sister-in-law of PW-4/Raju Indal Chavan. The evidence of PW-4/ Raju Chavan therefore becomes the evidence of an interested person and even otherwise since he admits in the cross examination that the contents of Exh.61, the seizure memorandum was not read over to him, nor he was aware as to from where the blood stained blouse was seized, the evidence of PW-4/ Raju Indal Chavan is of no assistance to the prosecution case.

6] PW-5/ Kiran Govardhan Agrawal has been examined in respect of the spot panchnama and two seizure memorandum and arrest memorandum of the accused. Though he had identified his signatures on Exhs. 63 to 66, the contents were denied by him, as a result of which he was declared as hostile witness. His cross examination does not elicit anything. PW-6/Dinesh Hage is the I.O., who has been examined at Exh. 67 (page 85). He has carried out the investigation. Though it is contended by Mr. Chutke, lea