V.G.PALSHIKAR, J. - (1.) THIS appeal is filed by the accused -appellant challenging the judgment dated 9.9.1985 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Rajsamand in Sessions Case No. 38/1984 convicting the accused appellants under Section 307 I.P.C. and sentencing him to suffer R.I. for four years on the grounds mentioned in the memo of appeal and as also verbally canvassed before me.
(2.) WITH the assistance of the learned Counsel for the accused -appellant and learned Public Prosecutor I have scrutinised the record and reappreciated the evidence on record. The prosecution story as it emerges from Rreappreeiation of the evidence on record is that; on 20.6.1984 in the afternoon at about 2:00 - 3:00 PM, Girvar Singh and Shel Singh were coming from the field, at that time near the Dobari -Ke -Dhora, five persons and Bhanwar Singh with the intention to beat Girvar Singh collected and beat Girvar Singh and his brother Vensingh, as a result of which Girvar Singh and Ven Singh received injury by blunt weapon and Lathies. Jabbar Singh had a Kulhadi and others had Lathies. On 20.6.1984 in the evening at about 5.30. Ven Singh lodged a report about the incident at the police station, Charbhuja. The police started usual investigation and after completion of investigation challan against the accused was filed for the offence under Sections 307, 323, 324, 149, 147 and 148 before the learned Magistrate from where it was transferred to the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rajsamand and on appreciation of the evidence he came to the conclusion of guilt and convicted the accused as aforesaid. It is this order of conviction which is challenged in this appeal on the grounds mentioned in the memo of appeal as also verbally canvassed before me.
(3.) FROM the scrutiny of the evidence and the judgment passed by the learned trial Judge it is apparent that this is a case of free fight the learned Judge has mentioned in his judgment that two witnesses are not reliable. The learned Judge has also found that the Doctor's opinion is not acceptable as he does not have any knowledge of the Medical Jurisprudence. The learned Judge has also criticised the evidence and had suspected that there was change in the deposition. The first information report is also not very clear on attributing the injuries.;