KUMAR Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners (accused 1 and 2) were tried and convicted for offences punishable under Sections 323, 324, 341 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 by the learned Trial Judge. Therefore, they were before the First Appellate Court. The learned Judge of the First Appellate Court on re-appreciation of evidence, acquitted accused 1 and 2 of offence punishable under Section 323 of IPC and confirmed the conviction for Sections 324 and 341 of IPC. The learned Counsel for petitioners is absent. In a decision in the case of Surya Baksh Singh v State of Uttar Pradesh, 2013 8 SCJ 797, the Supreme Court has held:

(2.) I have heard learned Government Advocate for State.

(3.) The prosecution has relied on evidence of P.Ws. 1 to 8. P.W. 1-Chinnaswami Naika had not witnessed the incident of assault. He had learnt the incident of assault at 8.30 p.m. on 21-6-2004. He had lodged first information on the basis of information conveyed to him. P.W. 2-Papanaika stated to be the eye-witness has not supported the case of prosecution. He was declared as hostile witness. P.W. 3-Nagesh has attested the spot inspection mahazar. He has not given incriminating evidence against accused. P.W. 4-Nagaraju has attested the mahazar under which weapons viz. chopper and club, were seized.