- (1.)BY the present appeal, the Appellant challenges the judgment dated 3rd April, 2012 whereby the Appellant was convicted for offence punishable under Sections 325/324/34 IPC and the order on sentence dated 18th October, 2012 whereby the Appellant was sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of 3 years and a fine of Rs.10,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of 3 months.
(2.)LEARNED counsel for the Appellant contends that on the same set of evidence, one accused has been acquitted and three others were released on probation. Despite the fact that MLC does not state that injured Gopal was unfit for statement, the FIR was deliberately registered on the statement of his brother PW3 Amar Singh. The doctor, who prepared the MLC, was not brought in the witness box. There are material contradictions in the statement of PW3 Amar Singh and PW13 Gopal. Further PW3 did not identify the Appellant in the Court and on identification stated that Appellant was Vikas. The statement of PW13 Gopal is full of improvements and he has been duly confronted with the same. The alleged motive is that the Appellant threatened the complainant to leave the business of Cable or face consequences. However, no complaint was made in this regard. Thus, the motive has not been proved. Further on the day of the alleged incident, it was stated that someone informed the Appellant that cable was being cut. However, it is not stated that who informed that cable was being cut. Though Gopal stated that he showed the cut pieces of the cable to PW14 the Investigating Officer, however, the Investigating Officer stated that Gopal did not show the disconnected cables and he did not seize the same. No enquiry was conducted by the Investigating officer on the point that the injured Gopal was Bad Character (BC) of the area. The Appellant took the plea of alibi and produced defence witnesses. However, they have not been considered. No recovery of the alleged rod has been made from the Appellant. No public witness has been associated in support of the allegation though the area was a thickly populated area. The Appellant was neither having a license nor running the business of cable and thus had no motive to injure PW13. Hence the Appellant be acquitted of the charge framed. In the alternative, he be released on the period already undergone which is more than 2 1/2 years.
Learned APP for the State relies on the statement of PW13 the injured Gopal wherein he stated that he was hit by the Appellant by rod on the head. As per the MLC, there are lacerated wounds on the head thus his testimony is fully corroborated. Minor contradictions in the testimonies of PW3 and PW13 do not go to the root of the matter and are bound to occur. An application was moved before the doctor wherein vide Ex.PW14/B it was opined that PW13 was unfit for statement and thus FIR was registered on the statement of his brother PW3, who was also an injured witness. PW16 has duly proved and exhibited the MLC as he identified the handwriting of Dr. Shanti, who had prepared the MLC and left the Hospital. From the evidence on record, it is evident that PW13 suffered a nasal bone fracture and in view thereof the conviction under Section 325 IPC was clearly made out. The Appellant has already been convicted in two cases for offences under Section 324 and 323 IPC besides being involved in the number of cases. Further after the judgment of conviction was pronounced on 3 rd April, 2012, the Appellant absconded and in proceedings under Section174A IPC, he admitted his guilt. The Trial Court found no justification in releasing him on probation under bond of good behaviour. In view of the evidence on record, the judgment of conviction and order on sentence are justified and do not call for interference.

(3.)I have heard learned counsel for the parties.