STATE Vs. MAHADEVANAIKA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the learned Advocates on merits with their consent. Perused the records produced by the learned SPP.

(2.) THE case of the prosecution in brief is that all the four accused with the common intention restrained P.W. 2 and assaulted her with club and coconut godamotte, consequent upon which P.W. 2 sustained fracture of metacarpal bone and phalange. The case of the prosecution is supported by the evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 2, who are eye witnesses to the incident. Among them, P.W. 2 is the injured eye witness. P.Ws. 5 and 6 are also eye witnesses to the incident in question. We find that both the Court below are justified in concluding that the evidence of P.Ws. 1, 2, 5 and 6 is consistent, cogent and reliable. The evidence of eye witnesses is supported by the version of doctor -P.W. 8 who has issued wound certificate as per Exs. P4 and 7. The doctor has also deposed that P.W. 2 has sustained fracture of metacarpal bone and phalange.

(3.) THE learned SPP contends that the order of the Trial Court sentencing accused Nos. 1 and 2 for two years may be restored. The said submission is opposed by the learned Advocate for respondents.