(1.) PETITIONER -complainant has filed this revision challenging the judgment of acquittal dated 28.9.1995 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class Hoshangabad in Criminal Case No. 163/92 whereby respondents No.1 and 2 have been acquitted of the charge for the offences under section 326 and 506(B) of the Indian Penal Code.
(2.) ACCORDING to prosecution on 22.10.1981 complainant Mangleshwar Singh, Forest Guard, was going in the bullock cart of Ramdayal Mukaddam and his wife and daughter, when the bullock cart reached near the temple of Peepaldhana, accused Vijay, Dashru and Rambharose stopped the bullock cart and Vijay assaulted him by the wooden side of a spear on his head. Rambharose, who was armed with an iron rod, assaulted him by it on his head and Dashru assaulted him on his back. When he fell down, Vijay assaulted him by a spear on his legs whereby he became unconscious. When he regained slight consciousness, he saw the accused persons moving around there. Nanhe Pasi of Sonthiya picked him up and took him to Sonthiya. Accused persons had threatened him that if he lodged the report, they would kill him. He lodged the report (Dehati Nalishi) (Ex.P -22) at Police Station Itarsi. On such report a case under section 341, 353, 332, 294 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code was registered. Mangleshwar Singh was sent for medical examination and treatment of Jan Sewa Rugnalaya, Itarsi(hospital) where Dr.S.S. Dedi, Assistant Surgeon (PW5) examined his injuries. In the medical examination he found 22 injuries on his body, of which injuries No.9, 10, 16 and 18 were incised injuries caused by hard and sharp weapon and other injuries were caused by hard and blunt object. Injury report is Ex.P -9. The X -ray examination of the injured was also performed by Technician Jagdish Rajput (PW7) whereupon Dr. Bedi opined that his radius bones of right and left hands and tibia bones of right and left legs were fractured. After further requisite investigation, the charge -sheet was filed before the Magistrate under Sections 341, 353, 333, 307, 506 and 294 of the Indian Penal Code. However, the learned Sessions Judge did not find the offence under Section 307 and 333 of the Indian Penal Code to be made out and remanded the case back to the Court of Magistrate for trial. The learned Magistrate framed the charges under Section 326 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code. Accused persons abjured the guilt and pleaded false implication.
(3.) THE important feature of the case is that except the injured Mangleshwar Singh himself, no other alleged eye witness supported the prosecution case before the trial Court. Even the witnesses of seizure and arrest memos did not support the prosecution.