STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH Vs. GANESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is State appeal against the acquittal of the respondents of charge under section 326/34. Indian .Penal Code, vide judgment, dated 26.7.1984, in Criminal Case No. 586 of 1980, passed by the Judicial Magistrate. First Class, Kawardha, District Rajnandgoan.

(2.) The villagers of Naudih, police section Kawardha are divided in two portions. On 9.9.1980, at about 7.00 p.m., the rival groups were deliberating on a dispute arising out of release of excess water from a field causing damage to the crop. In that connection, Gauaram, the complainant, is alleged to have been assaulted by respondent Ganesh with an axe and by the remaining two respondents by sticks. Gauaram went to the police station the next day 10-9-1980 where First Information Report (Ex. P-6) was lodged by his brother, Bharatlal (P.W. 1). Gauaram was sent for medical examination where Dr. Shrivastava (P.W. 5) on examination found, vide report Ex. P1. one incised wound on his head and a contusion on the back. Subsequently, vide report Ex. P-2, he opined that the head injury could have been fatal if prompt medical aid was not made available. The incident was witnessed by Sunderlal (P.W. 3). Sitaram (P.W. 6) and Murli (P.W. 7). The trial Court on assessment of the evidence, came to the conclusion that though the incident had taken place in the presence of numerous independent witnesses, the position failed to examine even one of them. All the witnesses examined are either related to the complainant or are his party men. The evidence also shows that there was a counter come against the complainant and some of his associates under section 323, Indian Penal Code arising out of the same incident. The incident had taken place during night and the evidence shows probability that there was free exchange of blows between the two groups. In these circumstances, in absence of independent witnesses, it could not be said that the prosecution had proved a charge against the respondents beyond reasonable doubt.

(3.) We are not impressed by the argument of the learned Deputy Advocate General that the trial Court grievously erred in Tnot placing reliance on the evidence of the eye-witnesses. The village Kotwar was also present at the scene of the occurrence. The trial Court was right in observing that he could be expected to be an independent witness and should have been examined. The exaggeration in the evidence of eye-witnesses is clear from the facts that they state dealing of lathi blows by both, Motiram and Bhagwati, whereas the medical evidence shows only one Such blow on the back of the complainant. Therefore, we do not feel that the conclusions drawn by the learned trial Magistrate arc unreasonable and perverse which could not have been taken by a reasonable man.