JUDGMENT : Patra, J. - By leave granted by this Court u/s 417(3), Code of Criminal Procedure this appeal is filed by the complainant in case No. C. 105 of 1964 on the file of tile S.D.M., Khurda against his order acquitting the 10 accused persons in that case. The village Swarana in P.S. Tangi is inhabited by 25 Harijan families and by about 3000 caste Hindu families. It is alleged that there is ill feeling between the Harijans and non-Harijans of the village. The complainant is a Harijan boy aged about 11 years. The prosecution case in short is that on 16-5-1964 at about 8 A.M. when the Appellant was going to his lands, Respondents Kasi Jena and Bandhu Barad asked him to inform all Harijans of his hamlet not to take bath in the village tank nor to fetch water from it. The Appellant refused to do so and told them that if they liked they might themselves tell the Harijans about it. At this Kasi Jena abused him and gave him a push and he fell down and when he tried to get up, the other accused Bandhu Barad gave him two lathi strokes on his back. The Appellant returned home and while he was narrating this incident to his mother, about 49 to 50 non-harijans came to his hamlet. Respondents Alekha and Bansi Paikera came inside his house and dragged his mother Neta Bewa into the Court-yard and assaulted her. Just at that moment 4 other Harijan women named Tilla, Parbati, China and Subans. Who had gone to fetch water from the village tank arrived with jars of water. The Respondent Purna Jena asked them as to under what authority they brought water from the tank to which they replied that they had been doing so since the time of their ancestors. Thereupon accused Purna directed the Respondents to drag them to village Danda and assault them. It transpired from the evidence that Parbati was assaulted by Alekh and Ainthu; Tilla was assaulted by Halu Palei and Halu Biswal; China was assaulted by Dhuli Padhan and Kasi Jena; Subana was assaulted by Laxmidhar Santara; and Neta Bewa was assaulted by Alekh Mangaraj and Bansi Paikera. It transpired from the evidence that Parbati was assaulted by Alekh and Ainthu; Tilla was assaulted by Halu Palei and Halu Biswal; China was assaulted by Dhuli Padhan and Kasi Jena; Subana was assaulted by Laxmidhar Santara; and Neta Bewa was assaulted by Alekh Mangaraj and Bansi Paikera. The matter was reported at the Police Station and the S.I. promised to take action, but as no action was taken by the Police, the complaint petition was filed in Court on 16-6-1964, i.e., exactly a month after the occurrence. Charge u/s 147, Indian Penal Code was framed against all the Respondents and charges u/s 323, Indian Penal Code. Severally against those Respondents who assaulted the ladies as indicated above. The Respondent Purna Chandra Jena was charged u/s 323/109, Indian Penal Code. The Respondents pleaded not guilty and stated that due to party faction in the village this false case had been foisted on them with the connivance of the Sarpanch and others. 2. In support of the prosecution case, 7 witnesses were Examined and an of them are harijans by caste. P.W. 1 is the complainant and P.W. 6 is his mother and both are alleged to have been assaulted. P.Ws 2 to 5 are the other 4 Harijan ladies who alleged that they had been assaulted. P.W. 7 Narasing Naik who is a resident of Balugan, but on the date of occurrence happened to be present in Mouza Swarana having gone there to see his sister is the only other eye witness to the occurrence. The defence did not examine any witnesses. 3. The learned Magistrate without discussing the evidence of the rosecution witnesses and judging their intrinsic worth rejected the testimony of P.Ws. 1 to 6 on the ground that they being themselves the victim are interested in the prosecution and that P.W. 7 is a chance witness. Noting further that no medical certificate has been produced certifying that P.Ws. 1 to 6 have received injuries and that the complaint petition was filed a month after the alleged occurrence, he arrived at the conclusion (sic) that the prosecution has failed to bring home the charges against the accused persons beyond all reasonable doubt and acquitted them. Noting further that no medical certificate has been produced certifying that P.Ws. 1 to 6 have received injuries and that the complaint petition was filed a month after the alleged occurrence, he arrived at the conclusion (sic) that the prosecution has failed to bring home the charges against the accused persons beyond all reasonable doubt and acquitted them. It is strenuously contended on behalf of the Appellant that the learned Magistrate disregarded the established principles of law in dealing with the evidence in this case and his summary rejection of the evidence either on the ground of interestedness of P.Ws. 1 to 6 or on the ground that P.W. 7 is a chance witness cannot be sustained. 4. It is not disputed that there is ill feeling between the Harijans and the non-harijans in the village. In this particular case the allegation is that the Harijan women were found fault with by some persons of the majority community for bringing water from the village tank and they were assaulted when they defied the mandatory order of the majority community. If really such an incident had taken place one would not ordinarily expect a member of the non harijan community to come to Court to depose against the non-harijans and the witnesses who would come forward to speak about such an incident would naturally be persons belonging to the Harijan community. If the evidence of such Harijan witnesses is rejected only on the ground that they belong to the Harijan class, the result would be that the crime committed on them by the non-harijans would go unpunished and the mechanical rejection of such evidence on the sole ground that they are partisan witnesses would invariably lead to failure of justice. While it is true that judicial approach has to be cautious in dealing with such evidence, out-right rejection of the evidence on the ground that it is partisan cannot be accepted as correct. The argument adopted by the learned Magistrate that because P.Ws. 1 to 6 are themselves the injured persons, their evidence against the accused persons is worthless is equally fallacious and must be rejected. If the evidence establishes that they were injured that would go to show that they were present at the spot and in that view of the matter they are the most competent witnesses to speak about what had happened there. If the evidence establishes that they were injured that would go to show that they were present at the spot and in that view of the matter they are the most competent witnesses to speak about what had happened there. What actually happened at the place of occurrence and that part was played by the individual accused person will necessarily depend upon the result of the examination of the evidence. 5. The argument that P.W. 7 is a chance witness and as such his evidence should be summarily rejected appears to be equally untenable. He no doubt belongs to a different village but he states that his sister lives in mouza Swaran where the occurrence took place and that as she was ill he had come to this village a day before to his sister's house which is about 100 cubits of from the place of occurrence and he went there on hearing a hulla. P.W. 7 has thus given a satisfactory explanation for his presence in village Swaran on the date of occurrence and for being present at the spot at that particular time. As was pointed out in a recent decision of this Court in Kishore and Others Vs. The State unless the evidence of a witness is otherwise assailable, it cannot be whittled down merely on the theory that he is a chance witness. In the normal course, different persons are bound to follow their own avocations of life and while doing so they are likely to come across incident which in ordinary course they never contemplate to see. When satisfactory explanation has been given as has been given by P.W. 7 in this case, to account for his presence at a particular place there is no reason by his evidence should be rejected on the ground that he is a chance witness. I therefore find that the learned Magistrate committed an error in not taking into consideration the evidence of P.Ws. 1 to 7 in this case. Another circumstance which weighed with the learned Magistrate is the delay in filing the complaint petition. P.W. 1 has given an explanation for the delay. It is stated that immediately after the occurrence information was lodged at the Tangi Police Station and although the S.I. promised to take action nothing was done by him. 1 to 7 in this case. Another circumstance which weighed with the learned Magistrate is the delay in filing the complaint petition. P.W. 1 has given an explanation for the delay. It is stated that immediately after the occurrence information was lodged at the Tangi Police Station and although the S.I. promised to take action nothing was done by him. It is true that no steps were taken to call for the relevant station diary to ascertain whether any such report had been made to the police. If there is such an entry it may not be helpful to prove the incident but it would at least show that the subsequent delay in filing the complaint petition is not very material. The Magistrate may consider whether he should allow an opportunity to the prosecution to can for the station diary. Regarding the non-filing of medical certificate in support of the prosecution case, all that can be said at this stage is that it depends on the nature of injuries caused. Fist blows and slaps may not leave any marks of injury. That, apart there appears to be no rule that every complaint petition u/s 323, Indian Penal Code must be accompanied by a medical certificate. 6. On a consideration of the evidence and circumstances in this case, I am of the view that the learned Magistrate has committed an error in dismissing the case in a somewhat summary manner. I therefore set aside the order of auquittal and direct that the case be sent back to the learned S.D.M., Khurda for disposal according to law and in the light of observation made above. Final Result : Dismissed