MILAP CHANDRA, J. - (1.) THIS appeal has been preferred against the judgment of Sri Sankatha Rai, Additional Sessions Judge Sirohi dated 17 -3 -1976 by which he acquitted the accused -respondent Narsing Lal under Sections 307 324 and 323, IPC. The facts of the case giving rise to this appeal may be summarised thus.
(2.) IN the morning of April 3, 1975, Lal Singh PW 2 went to the well of the accused to take bath along with his brother -in -law Sohan Singh. There was long standing enmity between the families of the accused and Lal Singh PW 2. The accused hurled abuses and forcibly turned out Lal Singh therefrom. On return from the well, he narrated the story of his insult to other members of his family. At about 7.30 p.m. the same day, when he was returning from his well to his house, Kesar Singh PW 10, uncle of Lal Singh PW 2 enquired from the accused for his said conduct. The accused stopped his bullock cart and started belabouring Kesar Singh PW 10 from the 'Jatru' of his cart. He ran his bullock cart on the body of Kesar singh after he fell down on the ground. Mohan Singh PW 7 brother of Lal Singh PW 2 was also injured when he intervened. Kesar Singh became unconscious due to injuries received by him. The injured Kesar Singh was immediately shifted to Government hospital, Takhatgarh. Dr. Jaswant Singh Bhandari PW 8 attended him and he sent his memo Ex. P 1O to the Station House Officer, Takhatgarh, intimating that Kesar Singh PW10 had been admitied in the hospital in injured condition. On its receipt, the SHO, Takhatgarh, Swaroop Narain, PW 11 recorded the FIR Ex. P 10 -A on the basis of the said memo, came to the hospital and commenced investigation After investigation, a challan under Sections 307, 223, 324 and 325, IPC was filed against the accused in the Court of the Munsif -cum -Judicial Magistrate, Bali who committed the accused to the Additional Sessions Judge, Sirohi. The Additional Sessions Judge, Sirohi framed charges under Sections 323, 224 and 307, IPC against the accused. He did not plead guilty and claimed trial. The prosecution examined injured Mohan singh PW7 and Kesar Singh PW 12, Badna PW 1, Lalsingh PW2, Jethusingh PW as eye -witnesses Ghisu PW 3, Khinv Singh PW 4 and Vardishanker PW 6 who immediately came to the place of occurrence after the occurrence, Dr. Jaswant Singh Bhimdari PW 8 who examined the injured Kesar Singh PW 10 Mohan Singh PW 7 and the accused Narsing Lal, Radiologist Dr. Rameshchandra Kinkar PW 9 who took the X -ray of the fractured ribs of Kesar Singh PW 10 and the Investigating Officer Swaroop Narain PW 11. The accused admits in his statement recorded under Section 313, Cr. PC, 1973 that on the day of occurrence, Lal Singh PW 2 came to his well for taking bath, he enquired from him as to why he had come there when the relations between them were not cordial, he forcibly returned him out when he (Lal Singh) hurled abuses to him, in the evening, he was reiurning with his cart to his house, 'Marpeet' took place infront of the Nohara of Deoji Maharaj and he was arrested. The remaining parts of the prosecution story have either been denied or ignorance has been pleaded. He also disclosed in his statement that Kesar Singh PW 12, Lal Singh PW 2, Jethu Singh PW 5 Mohan Singh PW 7 and Devi started beating him with lathies and got him fell down from his cart, Suja and Bhalka saved him and took him to his house in an an injured condition, the bullocks of his cart got frightened and his cart moved towards the Bara of Purohit, the next day S.H.O. came to his house and saw his injuries, the police officer told him that his report would be recorded after he was recovered and he lodged a complaint to the Deputy Superintendent of Police after he was released on bail.' He examined Sujiya DW 1 in his defence. After hearing the parties, the learned Additional Sessions Judge held that the prosecution witnesses are not independent and reliable, the prosecution story is not correct and accordingly acquitted the accused -appellant.
(3.) , It has been contended by the learned Additional Government Advocate that the learned Additional Sessions Judge has seriously erred in rejecting the testimony of Lalsingh PW 2 and injured Mohan Singh PW 7 and Kesar Singh PW 10 on the ground that they were interested witnesses, these witnesses fully supported the prosecution story, Mohan Singh PW 7 and Kesar Singh PW 10 received injuries in the said occurrence and this guaranteed their presence at the time of occurrence. He further contended that the statement of Mst. Badna PW 1 was not carefully and cautiously read by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. He lastly contended that the learned Additional Sessions Judge was not right in rejecting the testimony of the prosecution witnesses on the ground that they failed to explain the injuries of the accused Narsinglal,;