M.L. Shrimal, J. - (1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment of the Addl. Sessions Judge, Jhalawar dated 20 -12 -1974 whereby he convicted the accused appellant under secs. 326, 325, 324 and 323 I.P.C. and sentenced him as under: - - under sec. 326 I.P.C. to suffer 5 years' R.I. under sec. 325 I.P.C. to suffer 3 years' R.I. under sec. 324 I.P.C. to suffer 2 years' R.I. under sec. 323 I.P.C. to suffer 1 years' R.I. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. He was acquitted of the charge under sec. 307 I.P.C. Tensely speaking the prosecution case as disclosed at the trial is that on 18 -10 -1974 at 5 a.m. Devi Lal was grazing his cattle near the mud is of 'Tik Wala' field along with his brother Ramchandra. The accused app eared all of a sudden on the scene of occurrence and protested against grazing of the cattle by the complainant. Ramchandra refused to oblige him and the accused inflicted 5 farsi blows on the person of Ramchandra Devilal intervened but he was also not spared. During the course of incident Ramchandra sustained 5 injuries and Devilal sustained 18 injuries at the hands of the accused. The first information Report Ex. P/1 was lodged at the police Station Aswanar on the same day at about 7 a.m. The distance between the police station and the place of occurrence is about 3 miles. Two persons Babulal PW 3 and Udailal PW 4 were named as eye -witnesses in the First Informations Report Ex. P/1. The police after usual investigation submitted a challan against the accused under Sec. 307, 326, 325, 324 and 323 I.P.C. and the accused was ultimately tried by the learned Addl. Session Judge Jhalawar. The accused pleaded not guilty to the charges. The prosecution examined 2 witnesses in support of their case PW 1 Devilal and PW 2 Ramchandra are the injured persons and PW 3 Babulal and PW 4 Udailal are neighbourers of the place where the occurrence took place. Dr. G.D. Sharma PW 7 was examined to prove the injuries sustained by Ramchandra and Devilal. The injury reports of Ramchandra and Devilal are Ex. P/7 and P/8 respectively and their X -ray reports are Ex. P/7A and Ex. P/8A respectively. The accused examined only one witness in defence.
(2.) The learned Addl. Sessions Judge after taking into consideration the probability of the case and infirmities appearing in the statements of the witnesses, held the statement of the two injured witnesses and two other eye -witnesses reliable. Placing reliance upon the statements of all the four witnesses referred above, corroborated by the First Information Report and medical testimony, the learned Addl. Sessions Judge convicted and sentenced the accused appellant as mentioned above.
(3.) The learned counsel for the accused -appellant has lead before me the statements of PW 1 Devilal and PW. 2 Ramchandra. Both of them have made consistent statements. There is nothing in their statements on the basis of which the veracity of their statements can be doubted. They have been cross -examined at length but they stood very well at their cross -examination. Their statements further stand corroborated by the injury reports Ex. P/7 & Ex. P/8 & X -Ray reports Ex. P/7A & Ex. P/8A. The other two witnesses PW 3 Babulal and PW. Udailal have made similar statements as made by the injured persons. There is no reason for them to falsely implicate the accused. Besides that, the first information report of the occurrence was lodged within the short time in which the names of witnesses have been given and the entire prosecution story has been described in details which leads considerable support to the prosecution case. I find no reason to reverse the finding of fact arrived at by the trial court who had the advantage of observing the Demeanour of the witnesses in witness -box. The conviction of the accused -appellant under Ss. 326, 325, 324, 323 I.P.C. is, therefore upheld.;