Criminal Appeal No. 1022 of 2003 · Kerala High Court · 2012

CRL.A.NO.1022/03:-2-:persons were arrested and taken into custody and put them inthe police jeep. It is the further case of the police that accusedNos.1 to 15 assaulted the Sub Inspector of Police causing grievoushurt to him and thus he was intimidated. According to the Police,the above act of the accused persons caused obstructions to thedischarge of official duty of the public officer and the accusedpersons have also released the three arrested persons from thelegal custody of the Police and thus the accused have committedthe above mentioned offences. On the basis of the aboveallegation, PW1 preferred a suo motu report based upon whichExt.P2 FIR was registered for the said offences, and finally, oncompleting the investigation, report was filed in the court ofAdditional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ernakulam where the samewas received as C.P.No.9 of 2000 and the learned Magistratecommitted the case against all the accused except A18, as hewas absconding. Therefore the case against A18 was refiled asC.P.No.41/2000. But subsequently, A18 appeared before thecommittal court and his case was also subsequently committed tothe Sessions Court. On receiving the committal proceedings, thePrincipal Sessions Court took cognizance of the offence and made CRL.A.NO.1022/03:-3-:over the case to the first additional Sessions Judge (Adho-1),Ernakulam for trial and disposal. Though the case with respectto seventeen accused was committed and S.C.No.49/2001 wasinstituted , only A2, A5 to A15 and A17 appeared before the trialcourt and therefore, the case against A1, A3, A4 and A16 wassplit up and the case against A18 is subsequently committedupon which S.C.No.362/2001 was instituted. Subsequently, theabove two cases were transferred to the court of AdditionalSessions Judge, Adhoc-1 Ernakulam. When the Sessions caseNo.49/2001 was taken again, the accused Nos. 4 and 16 wereabsent, but other accused in S.C.No.49/2001 and 362/2001 werepresent before the court. Therefore, after hearing the prosecutionas well as the defence, a formal charge was framed against theaccused who faced the trial , i.e., A2, A5 to A15 and A17 and alsoagainst A18 in S.C.No.362 of 2001 for the offences under sections143, 147, 341, 353, 333, 225(b) read with section 149 IPC. Whenthe said charge read over and explained to the accused, theydenied the same and pleaded not guilty and consequently, theprosecution adduced its evidence consists of the testimony ofPWs. 1 to 11 and Exts. P1 to P9. M.O-1 identity card is also CRL.A.NO.1022/03:-4-:produced and identified. No evidence, either oral ordocumentary, was produced from the side of the defence.Finally, by a common judgment dated 31.5.2003 in S.C.No.49 of2001 and 362 of 2001, the trial court has found that the accusedpersons have voluntarily caused hurt to PW1 to deter him fromdoing his duty and though the prosecution has not succeeded inproving the offence under section 333 IPC, there is ampleevidence to prove that the above accused persons havecommitted the offences punishable sections 143, 147, 341,353, 332, 225-B read with Section 149 IPC, and the very samecourt has further found that the prosecution has failed to proveany of the offences alleged against accused No.18 who faced thetrial in S.C.No.362/2001. Thus when the accused inS.C.No.49/2001 were convicted for the above offences, they wereacquitted for the charges under section 333 and accordingly,they were acquitted under section 235 of Cr.P.C, but they wereconvicted for the offences under sections 143, 147, 341, 353, 332,225-B read with Section 149 IPC and A18, the accused inS.C.No.362 of 2001 is acquitted of all the charges levelled againsthim. On such conviction, the appellants in this appeal, who are CRL.A.NO.1022/03:-5-:accused Nos.A2, A15 to A15 and A17, considering thecircumstance of the case and the nature of the offences, accordingto the learned Judge, it was expedient to release them onprobation of good conduct and thus they were released onprobation of good conduct under section 4(1) of the Probation ofOffenders Act for a period of two years on execution of a bond forRs.5000/- with two solvent sureties each for the like sum. It isalso ordered that the accused shall report before the DistrictProbation Officer, within 15 days of execution of the bond undersection 4(3) of the Probation of Offenders Act , and continue to doso every three months. The Probation Officer is also directed tosent a report to the court during every quarter till the expiry ofprobation period. The appellants/accused are directed to pay acompensation of Rs.500/- each to PW1 under section 5 of theProbation of Offenders Act. It is also held that the amountordered to be paid as compensation is liable to be recovered asfine , in default of payment of compensation, they are liable toundergo simple imprisonment for fifteen days each. It is theabove conviction and order and also the direction to paycompensation are challenged in this appeal. CRL.A.NO.1022/03:-6-:3. I have heard Sri T.D. Robin, the learned counsel for theappellants and Smt. Hyma, the learned Public Prosecutor,appearing for the State.4. As I indicated earlier, to prove the case of theprosecution, PWs 1 to 11 were examined and produced certaindocuments. Among the witnesses examined, PW1 is the then S.Iof Police, Hill Palace Police station, Thripunithura, who is thealleged injured in this case. When PW1 was examined, he haddeposed that while he was attending the crime conference atthe office of Dy.S.P at Thrikkakara, on 5.12.96, he receivedwireless message regarding the illegal act of the students of RLVCollege, Thripunithura near the Palace Girls High School, andimmediately he along with PW3, the Probation Sub Inspector andone Additional S.I, rushed to the spot in a police jeep driven byPW4. According to PW1, they reached the spot at 1.30 p.m andthereafter the alleged incident took place. According to PW1, onseeing the illegal acts of the students, PW1 apprehended threestudents who were painting slogans on the Blue Star bus andwhen he put them into police jeep, A1 to A15 forcefully releasedthem. According to PW1, when he resisted the students, A1 CRL.A.NO.1022/03:-7-:pushed his hand and his hand hit on the iron bar of the Policejeep as result of which he sustained fracture injury on the left ringfinger. According to PW1, immediately police flying squad reachedthere and with their assistance, A1 to A15 were arrested on thespot and taken to the Hill Palace Police Station. PW2 is anindependent witness who was working as a bus conductor but heturned hostile to the prosecution and Ext.P3 is the contradictionmarked through PW2. PW3 is the Probation S.I who deposedfully supporting the prosecution case and in tune with thedeposition of PW1. PW4 is the Police Jeep Driver in which vehicleallegedly PWs 1 and 3 arrived at the spot. PW4 says that therewas a scuffle at the spot between the students and PW1 and as aresult of which PW1 sustained injury. PW5, who was in the flyingsquad arrived at the spot, was then working as Head Constable.His evidence is also to the effect that when he arrived there, PW1and students engaged in a scuffle and, according to PW5, PW1sustained injury in the said scuffle. PW6 is a doctor who wasattached to the Vijayakumara Menon Memorial Hospital, whoissued Ext.P4 wound certificate dated 7.12.96 with respect to theinjury of PW1. PW7 is an attestor to Ext.P5 scene mahazar. PW8 CRL.A.NO.1022/03:-8-:is the Police Constable attached to Hill Palace Police Station who isan attestor to Ext.P6 mahazar for the seizure of identity card inthe name of Subin Vamattam ,who is the 16th accused in this case.PW9 is Doctor A. Rajakumari attached to Taluk Head QuartersHospital, Thripunithura who issued Ex.P7 wound certificate dated5.12.96 with respect to wound of PW1. PW10 is an independentwitness who was then working as driver of KSRTC but he turnedhostile. Ext.P8 is the contradiction of PW10. PW11 is the thenAddl.S.I of Police, Hill Palace Police Station who undertook theinvestigation and eventually laid the charge. It was PW11 whoprepared Ext.P1 mahazar of the bus. These are the evidence andmaterials relied on by the learned Judge of the trial court insupport of his finding and convicting the appellants for theabove said offence.5. Sri T.D.Robin, the learned counsel appearing for theappellant strenuously submitted that the findings of the courtbelow are improper, illegal and against the evidence andmaterials on record. Reiterating the stand taken by the defence,during the trial of the case, the learned counsel submitted thatPW1 sustained injury during the scuffle. Connected with the CRL.A.NO.1022/03:-9-:incident, even though several students, including boys and girlswere taken to the Hill Palace Police Station, the boys who madeas accused in the crime retained there and several girl studentswere let off and the boys were made accused as the SubInspector sustained injury for which the accused are not in anyway responsible. The learned counsel vehemently submitted thatthe very initiation of the prosecution allegation cannot be believedand it is under shadow of doubt. It is pointed out that though thealleged incident had taken place in front of the Palace Girls HighSchool, Thripunithura, which place of occurrence is within one ortwo kilo metres from the Hill Palace Police satiation, nointimation was given to the police station and it is unbelievablethat wireless message was given to PW1 who was attending thecrime conference at Thrikkakara. It is also pointed out by thecounsel that there is no clear and convincing evidence as to fromwhich source the prosecution witness, namely, PW1 receivedwireless message. So according to the learned counsel, theprosecution story as such cannot be believed. The learned counselsubmitted that absolutely there is no evidence to show that theaccused or the students group which allegedly entered in CRL.A.NO.1022/03:-10-:writing slogans on the bus committed any offence so as to takesuch students into lawful custody. It is pointed out that thoughthe prosecution has alleged that there was unlawful assembly,the common object of such unlawful assembly is neither pleadednor proved. According to the learned counsel, in order to justifythe so called action of PW1, in taking into custody the persons,namely, A16 to A18, there must be specific charge or allegationthat they have committed such and such offences whichnecessitated the arrest or detention of such persons. In theabsence of any such specific pleadings or evidence, according tothe learned counsel, the story narrated by PW1 that he hadarrested and detained A1 to A18 cannot be believed. It is thefurther submission of the learned counsel that, the evidence onrecord, particularly, the evidence of PWs.1, PW4 and PW5regarding the arrest of A16 to A18 and the allegation that theywere forcefully released from the lawful custody are notconvincing and that the same is contradicting each other. It is alsothe submission of the learned counsel that, the investigation inthis case was conducted by PW11, who is inferior to PW1, onwhose report Ext.P2 FIR was registered and therefore, the CRL.A.NO.1022/03:-11-:accused were prejudiced. Another point raised by the learnedcounsel is that the story of the prosecution that, PW1 sustainedinjury, is also unbelievable since the evidence in this regardadduced by the prosecution are insufficient and not trustworthy.According to the learned counsel, though PW7 was examined, theevidence of PW7 does not reveal that PW1 sustained any grievousinjury. It is further pointed out that, after two days from the dateof the incident, PW1 contacted PW6, a doctor attached to aprivate hospital, and obtained Ext.P4 certificate. But thedeposition of PW6 is not supported by any other materials to provethat PW1 sustained grievous injury. Thus, according to thelearned counsel, if the interested testimony of PW1 and PW3, areexcluded, there is no reliable, convincing and independentevidence to prove the case of the prosecution against theappellants/accused. Therefore, the findings of the court below andthe conviction recorded by it are liable to be set aside. 6. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutorvehemently submitted that the accused were engaged in a strikeand on getting information regarding the law and order situation,PW1 and party moved at the spot and when PW1 removed A16 to CRL.A.NO.1022/03:-12-:A18 and put them in the police jeep, other accused tried toforcefully rescue them and at the instance of A1, PW1 sustainedgrievous injury and these facts are proved by adducing sufficientevidence which considered by the trial court. According to thelearned Public Prosecutor, PW1 is the injured and his evidenceneed not be discarded or the same is not rendered asunbelievable, simply because he is a police officer or the injuredin this case. According to the learned Public Prosecutor, theevidence of PW1 is further corroborated by the evidence of PW3,PW4 and PW5. It is the further submission of the learned PublicProsecutor that, the medical evidence consists of the depositionof PWs 6 and 9 supported by documentary evidence, i.e., Exts.P4and P7 wound certificates, further proved the factum of grievousinjury sustained by PW1. According to the learned PublicProsecutor, infirmities or contradictions pointed out by thelearned counsel for the appellants are minor in nature and theevidence of PW1 supported by the medical evidence alone aresufficient to prove the allegation against the appellants and thus,according to the learned Public Prosecutor, the trial court is correctin its finding and convicting the appellants. CRL.A.NO.1022/03:-13-:7. I have carefully considered the arguments advancedby the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned PublicProsecutor. I have perused the judgment of the court below andscrutinized the evidence and materials on record. 8. It is relevant to note that the court below has framed acharge against the accused and the first charge is to the effectthat , on 5.8.1996 at 1.30 p.m, the accused formed an unlawfulassembly in front of the Hill Palace Girls High School,Thripunithura and thereby committed the offence punishableunder section 143 read with Section 149 IPC. The second chargeis to the effect that, in prosecution of the unlawful assembly,thereby they committed the offences punishable under section147 read with Section 149 IPC. The third charge is that, bywrongfully restrained the passenger buses passing along the roadand written 'RLV students on strike' on the body of the businessand thereby committed offence punishable under sections 341read with section 149 IPC. The fourth charge is that, the accusedvoluntarily caused grievous hurt on PW1, a public servant, todeter him from discharging his duty and thereby committed theoffence punishable under section 353 read with section 149 IPC. CRL.A.NO.1022/03:-14-:The fifth charge is to the effect that in the same transaction, inprosecution of the common object of unlawful assembly, releasedaccused Nos. 1 to 15 (probably A16 to A18) from the lawfulcustody of PW1 and thereby committed the offence under section225B read with section 149 IPC and the 6th charge is to the effectthat, in the same transaction, in prosecution of the commonobject of unlawful assembly, assaulted PW1 (CW1) and party byusing criminal force or deter him from discharging their duty andthereby committed the offences punishable under section 353 readwith section 149 IPC. In the light of the rival arguments advancedand in the light of the evidence and materials on record, thequestion to be considered, especially in the light of the abovecharge, is whether the trial court is justified in its finding andconvicting the appellants for the offence punishable undersections 143, 147, 341, 353, 332 and 225-B read with section 149IPC. I have already referred to the evidence and materials availablein the case on hand. Absolutely there is no evidence to showthat A16, A17 and A18 were arrested for any of the chargesmentioned, court charge or in the police charge. Going by theevidence of the deposition of PW1, the star witness of the CRL.A.NO.1022/03:-15-:prosecution, it appears that according to me, the riot alleged inthe case is that the students had written on the wind screen ofthe Blue Star bus as 'RLV students on strike' and the buses camebehind the said bus were lying there, as there was traffic block.PW1 while examination deposed that the students createdobstruction against the free movement of the buses or the crew ofthe bus, namely, 'Blue Star' bus made in the complaint that theywere not permitted to operate the service. In the further evidenceof PW1, he has stated: “ അങ(cid:3)ന(cid:5) ബ(cid:8)ഷ(cid:10) ഉപയ(cid:14)(cid:15)ഗ(cid:3)ച(cid:10) മഞനപ(cid:14)(cid:3)ന(cid:10) ന(cid:21)(cid:15)ണ(cid:10) എഴ(cid:25)ത(cid:3)(cid:14)(cid:3)ര(cid:25)ന മ(cid:29)ന(cid:10) വ(cid:3)ദ (cid:15)ര"(cid:3)(cid:21)ന# ഞ(cid:15)നയപ(cid:15)ല’സ(cid:10) ജ’പ(cid:3)യല(cid:14)(cid:10)(cid:21)(cid:10) പ(cid:3)ട(cid:3)ച(cid:10) (cid:21)(cid:14)റ(cid:3).” The above evidence ofPW1 is not sufficient to hold that any of the accused in thecrime committed any offence since those facts are not sufficientto constitute any of the offences charged against the accused.No documentary evidence is produced to show that the abovementioned three students were legally arrested or detained.Such documentary evidence is conspicuously absent andaccording to me, the same assumes importance in the light of theconflicting version of the prosecution witnesses. PW3, the then CRL.A.NO.1022/03:-16-:probation S.I of police deposed that: ച(cid:3)ല(cid:3)ല എഴ(cid:25)ത(cid:3)ന1(cid:15)ണ(cid:3)ര(cid:25)ന മ(cid:29)ന(cid:10) വ(cid:3)ദ (cid:15)ര"(cid:3)(cid:21)ന# ചബ2ന“സ(cid:15)റ(cid:25)4 ഞ(cid:15)(cid:5)(cid:25)4 (cid:21)(cid:29)ട(cid:3) ജ’പ(cid:3)ല പ(cid:3)ട(cid:3)ച(cid:25) (cid:21)(cid:14)റ(cid:3)..............അയപ(cid:15)ള മറ(cid:25)പത(cid:3)(cid:5)യ6(cid:15)#4 വ(cid:3)ദ (cid:15)ര"(cid:3)(cid:21)ള S.I ചബ2ന സ(cid:15)റ(cid:3)യ(cid:5)(cid:14)(cid:25)4 എയന(cid:14)(cid:25)4തള(cid:3)മ(cid:15)റ(cid:3)ന1(cid:15)ണ(cid:10) മ(cid:29)ന(cid:10) യപനര(cid:14)(cid:29)4 ജ’പ(cid:3)ല (cid:5)(cid:3)ന(cid:3)റ1(cid:15)ന ബ8മ(cid:3)ച(cid:25). ഈസമ(cid:14)4 മയ(cid:5)(cid:15)ജ(cid:10) എന വ(cid:3)ദ (cid:15)ര"(cid:3) .SI ചബ2ന സ(cid:15)റ(cid:3) ന(cid:2)ഠ ഇടത(cid:10);(cid:21)പ(cid:3)ട(cid:3)ച(cid:10) തള(cid:3)(cid:14)ത(cid:3)ല നവച(cid:10) ;(cid:21) ജ’പ(cid:3)നന (cid:21)ന(cid:3)(cid:14)(cid:3)ല ന(cid:21)(cid:15)ണ(cid:10) ഇടത(cid:10);(cid:21) യമ(cid:15)ത(cid:3)രവ(cid:3)രല(cid:3)(cid:5)(cid:10) മ(cid:25)റ(cid:3)വ(cid:25)ണ(cid:15)(cid:14)(cid:3). ഈ സമ(cid:14)4 ജ’പ(cid:3)ല (cid:21)(cid:14)റ(cid:3)(cid:14)മ(cid:29)ന(cid:10)യപര(cid:25)4 ഓട(cid:3) രകനപട(cid:25).”During the cross examination of PW3, he has stated:“ സ(cid:6)ഘര(cid:9)(cid:10)വസ എന(cid:10)ന(cid:15)ന(cid:17) മനസ(cid:21)ല(cid:10)യ(cid:24)(cid:10) ()Q ഇവ(cid:21)ന(cid:28) സ(cid:6)ഘര(cid:9)(cid:10)വസ എനത(cid:30)ന(cid:31)(cid:10)ണ(cid:17) ഉയ"ശ(cid:21)ചത(cid:17) എന(cid:10)ന(cid:15)നറ(cid:21)(cid:24)(cid:21)ല (A)”PW4, in his chief examination , apart from stating about thewriting on the buses, he has stated:“ Bus നനറ side ല തട(cid:3) (cid:8)ഹ#4നവച(cid:10) ന(cid:21)(cid:15)ണ(cid:3)ര(cid:25)ന(cid:25).. SubInspector അവയര(cid:15)ട(cid:10) മ(cid:15)റ(cid:3)യപ(cid:15)(cid:21)(cid:15)ന പറഞയപ(cid:15)ള(cid:21)(cid:29)ട(cid:25)തല(cid:10) (cid:8)ഹ#4നവച(cid:25)...... അത(cid:3)ല രണ(cid:25)മ(cid:29)ന(cid:10)യപനര SIഅറസ(cid:10) നച(cid:14)(cid:10)ത(cid:25) ജ’പ(cid:3)ല (cid:21)(cid:14)റ(cid:3). വ(cid:3)ദ (cid:15)ര"(cid:3)(cid:21)ള എല(cid:15)വര(cid:25)4 വന(cid:10)(cid:8)ഹ#4ഉണ(cid:15)1(cid:3) അവനര ത(cid:3)ര(cid:3)ച(cid:10) ഇറ1(cid:3)ന1(cid:15)ണ(cid:25) യപ(cid:15)(cid:14)(cid:3). അയപ(cid:15)ളപ(cid:3)ട(cid:3)വല(cid:3)(cid:14)(cid:25)ണ(cid:15)(cid:14)(cid:3)ട(cid:10) എവ(cid:3)നടയ(cid:14)(cid:15) തട(cid:3) .(cid:14)(cid:25)നട ;(cid:21)(cid:14)(cid:10)(cid:21)(cid:10)പര(cid:3)1(cid:10)SIപറ(cid:3)''.So in the evidence of PWs 3 and 4, the time and stage at whichPW1 sustained injury and the reason for sustaining injury areentirely different and it cannot be said that their evidence isconsistent. According to PW5, on getting information from thecontrol room, himself and party arrived at the spot and according CRL.A.NO.1022/03:-17-:to me, the information he received was : “RLV College-നല വ(cid:21)ദ((cid:10)ര)(cid:21)(cid:31)ള paint ന(cid:31)(cid:10)ണ(cid:17) board എഴ(cid:30)ത(cid:30)(cid:6) bus (cid:24)(cid:10)തതക(cid:10)രക(cid:17) ശല((cid:6) ന/യ1നത(cid:10)(cid:24)(cid:30)(cid:6) S.I(cid:24)(cid:30)(cid:6) പ(cid:10)ര3(cid:21)(cid:24)(cid:30)(cid:6) സലത(cid:17) ന/ന(cid:17) arrest ന/യ(cid:10)(cid:2) തശമ(cid:21)ചയ4(cid:10)ളഎയന(cid:10) ബഹള(cid:6) ന(cid:28)ക(cid:30)നത(cid:10)(cid:24)(cid:21) അറ(cid:21)(cid:24)(cid:21)ച(cid:17) ...............”.PW5 further says : ..അവ(cid:3)നട ''ന/ല(cid:30)യ9(cid:10)ള .(cid:14)(cid:25)4 വ(cid:3)ദ (cid:15)ര"(cid:3)(cid:21)#(cid:25)4തമ(cid:3)ലപ(cid:3)ട(cid:3)വല(cid:3)SI(cid:21)(cid:29)ട(cid:25)നത(cid:10) (cid:21)ണ(cid:29). പ(cid:3)ട(cid:3)വല(cid:3)(cid:14)(cid:3)ല S.I (cid:14)(cid:25)നട ;(cid:21)(cid:14)(cid:3)നല വ(cid:21)രല(cid:21)ന(cid:17)പര(cid:21)ക(cid:17) പറ(cid:21) 10-30 (cid:21)(cid:25)ട(cid:3)(cid:21)ള സലത(cid:25)ണ(cid:15)(cid:14)(cid:3)ര(cid:25)ന(cid:25).പത(cid:10) പത(cid:3)(cid:5)ഞച(cid:25)യപനര arrest ന/യ(cid:10)(cid:2) സഹ(cid:10)(cid:24)(cid:21)ച(cid:30).” In the deposition of PW5, it is stated that though he had arrivedat the spot, he had no occasion to witness the alleged attempton the part of the accused to rescue the arrested accused. Evenaccording to his information there was an attempt from thepart of the S.I to arrest the accused. So the evidence of PW5 isalso not sufficient to prove that the accused tried to rescueaccused Nos. 16 to 18 and in that incident PW1 sustained injury.So the prosecution evidence are not sufficient to prove that A16 toA18 committed any offence and there is no evidence to prove thatthose accused were legally arrested. The evidence of theprosecution witnesses are not consistent as to how PW1sustained the alleged injury. Thus, the insufficient andinconsistent evidence of the prosecution shows that the main CRL.A.NO.1022/03:-18-:plank of the prosecution story is broken.9. As rightly pointed out by the counsel for the appellants,the evidence on record are not sufficient to prove that PW1sustained grievous injury in the alleged incident. The learnedJudge of the trial court in his judgment itself, it is categoricallyfound, particularly, in paragraph 15 that, “ from the evidence it isnot possible to discern that the accused had intention to cause orknows himself to be likely to cause grievous hurt. The accused werenot armed with weapons. They were engaged in an agitation. Theevidence shows that there was scuffle and in that PW1 sustainedinjury. From the evidence and circumstances it is not possible toarrive at a conclusion that the accused person have intentionallycaused hurt to PW1”. The above findings of the court belowindirectly shows that the accused were not having necessarymens rea to commit the offence as alleged by the prosecutionagainst them. Therefore, the only inevitable conclusion that canbe arrived is that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove itscase and the essential ingredients of the sections of offences CRL.A.NO.1022/03:-19-:alleged against the accused are not attracted. 1O. It is also pertinent to note that, no independent witnesshas supported the case of the prosecution. The only evidence,though the same are weak and insufficient, are that of the policepersonnels who are interested in this case. Thus on examinationof the evidence of PW1, according to me, it appears that it is notsafe to act upon his evidence, especially, in the light of the fact thatthe medical evidence is not fully supported his case. ThoughPW1 approached PW9 on the date of the incident itself, andExt.P7 wound certificate was issued , PW9 has no case that PW1sustained any grievous injury. If PW1 had actually sustainedgrievous injury, he need not had waited up to 7.12.96 and tomeet PW6, a doctor who attached to a private hospital. ThoughPW6 deposed before the court that PW1 had fracture on his finger,the said opinion of PW6 is not supported by any material like X-rayor any other acceptable evidence. When PW1 claimed that plasterwas affixed on his finger, according to PW6, there was no needfor putting plaster. According to the learned Judge, that was avery minor contradiction, but according to me in the backgroundof the above case, the above contradiction assumes importance, CRL.A.NO.1022/03:-20-:especially, when the prosecution has miserably failed to supplyany documentary evidence other than the evidence of PW1 toshow that PW1 sustained grievous injury. In this juncture, it is alsorelevant to note that the prosecution witnesses have noconsistent case as to how PW1 sustained injury. Having regard tothe above contradictions and infirmities in the evidence ofprosecution witnesses, and in the absence of clinching andacceptable evidence, to the effect that PW1 sustained fractureinjury, according to me, the findings of the court below that theaccused have committed the offence under section 332 IPC cannotbe approved.11. In the light of the above discussion and in the light of thefacts and circumstances and the evidence referred to above, I amof the view that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove itscase against the accused beyond reasonable doubt andtherefore, the findings of the court below cannot be approved.Accordingly, the conviction recorded by the trial court against theappellants for the offences under section 143, 147, 341, 353, 332,225B read with Section 149 IPC is set aside.In the result, this appeal is allowed setting aside the CRL.A.NO.1022/03:-21-:judgment dated 31.5.2003 in S.C.No.49 of 2001 and accordingly,the appellants/accused are acquitted of all the charges levelledagainst them. The bail bond if any executed by them is cancelledand they are set at liberty. If the appellants have alreadydeposited the fine amount if any, they are entitled to get back thesame. The appeal is allowed accordingly. V.K.MOHANAN, JUDGE kvm/- CRL.A.NO.1022/03:-22-: V.K. MOHANAN, J.CRL.A. NO. 1022 OF 2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 8.2.2012. CRL.A.NO.1022/03:-23-: