MANU Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant was tried along with his parents, for the offences punishable under Ss. 341, 324, 307 read with S. 34 of IPC. The Trial Judge convicted the appellant for the offence under S. 324 IPC and ordered his release on probation of good conduct, on execution of a self bond and furnishing one surety. Feeling aggrieved, this appeal was filed.

(2.) PW -1 is the complainant and Ex. P1 is the complaint. Case was registered in the respondent Police Station, in Crime No. 403/2006, for the aforesaid offences. PW -9 conducted the investigation and filed the charge -sheet. After compliance under S. 209 Cr.P.C., the case was committed to the Court of Sessions and was registered as S.C. No. 75/2008. The accused appeared and pleaded 'not guilty' and claimed trial. In support of the case of prosecution, PWs 1 to 10 were examined and Exs. P1 to P13 and M.Os. 1 to 5 were marked. Statement of the accused under S. 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded and the accused denied the incriminating circumstances. Accused No. 1 got himself examined as D.W. -1 and marked Exs. D1 to D13. Considering the rival contentions and on perusal of the record, the Judgment dated 30.11.2009 was passed acquitting all the accused of the charges for the offences punishable under Ss. 341 and 307 read with S. 34 IPC. Accused Nos. 1 and 2 were acquitted of the offences punishable under S. 324 read with S. 34 IPC. However, the third accused i.e., the appellant was convicted for the offences punishable under S. 324 IPC.

(3.) Sri A.H. Bhagavan, learned advocate, firstly contended that the presence of the accused No. 3 at the scene of occurrence has not been established. Secondly, the case of the prosecution being that the appellant assaulted PWs 1 and 3 with chopper and the deposition of PW -10 and Exs. P4 & P5 having shown lacerated wound and not a deep incised wound, the finding of guilt recorded by the Trial Judge is perverse. Thirdly, PW -2, brother of PW -1 and son of PW -3, having stated, that in the scuffle, they were pushing each other, and PW -10, who issued Exs. P4 to P6 having stated that the injuries are Macerated wounds and simple injuries' and that the same could be caused, if they fall on a hard surface of the ground or when came in contact with the object like stone, the appreciation of the evidence by the Trial Judge is perverse. Learned advocate submitted that the oral evidence being totally inconsistent with the medical evidence and the prosecution case being doubtful, the appellant is entitled to the benefit of doubt. He contended that evidence of PW -10 and Exs. P4 and P5 does not support the case of the presence of accused No. 3 and hence, his presence at the scene of occurrence and use of M.O. 1 for inflicting of the injuries on PW -1 and PW -3 is completely ruled out. Fourthly, PWs 1, 2, 3, 4, 6 and 8 are the sons, daughter -in -law and father and being interested witnesses, their evidence cannot be relied upon. Fifthly, evidence of PW -6, who came after the incident and when the injured was shifted to the hospital could not have been relied upon. PW -7 being a person working in the land of PW -3 and as such an interested witness, his evidence cannot be relied upon. PW -5 being a mahazar witness, has no relevance to prove the incident i.e., the accused No. 3 having assaulted PW -1 and PW -3 with M.O. 1. Learned counsel submitted that the impugned Judgment being perverse and illegal, is liable to be set aside.