- (1.) O. P. Srivastava, J. This is an appeal from the judgment and order dated 29-3-1995, passed by the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Unnao, convicting the appellants under Section 307 read with 34 I. P. C. and sentencing each of them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year.
(2.) THE prosecution case, in brief, is that the accused appellants and one Raees inflicted injuries on the informant Ambika Prasad (P. W. 1) by means of Lathi and Danda on 27-6-1988 at about 10. 00 p. m. in the night. THE F. I. R. regarding this incident was lodged at P. S. Kotwali, District Unnao in the same night at 10. 45 p. m. THE injuries of Ambika Prasad were examined the same night at 11. 35 p. m. by Dr. J. Singh (P. W. 3 ). He found five lacerated wounds, one abraded and one contusion. Injuries other than Nos. 1 and 2 were found to be simple, X-ray of injury Nos. 1 and 2 was advised. On X-ray, the fracture on the parietal bone was detected. THE case was registered in the G. D. During investigation, site plan was prepared and filed and the accused persons were charge sheeted under Sections 323, 325, 308,504 I. P. C. However, after commitment of the case to the Court of Sessions, the learned Additional Sessions Judge framed charge under Section 307/34 I. P. C. against the appellants and one Raees. During trial, the prosecution examined injured/informant Ambika Prasad (P. W. 1) who unfolded the prosecution case. In corroboration of the statement, Saraswati Prasad (P. W 2) was also examined by the prosecution. Dr. J. Singh (P. W. 3) proved the injury report. Sri T. N. Pandey (P. W. 6) was X-ray technician who proved the X-ray report. S. I. Chhote Lal Jatav (P. W. 7) was Investigating Officer, who proved the site plan and the charge sheet submitted by S. I. A. K. Dubey. Upon consideration of the material on record,. the learned Additional Sessions Judge found the case against the appellants under Section 307/34 I. P. C. proved. Consequently the appellants were convicted. However, Raees was acquitted.
(3.) I have heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned A. G. A. Learned counsel for the appellants argued that although the incident is said to have taken place in the night at about 10. 00 p. m. but neither in the F. I. R. nor in the evidence before the Court, the prosecution established that there was any source of light. It has also been argued that the F. I. R. was not lodged by the informant as alleged by the prosecution and the same has not been proved by the prosecution. Learned counsel for the appellants has referred to some contradiction also in the statement of the witnesses of the fact.;