ORDER (ORAL) Ashok Agarwal, J. - The appellant is original accused No. 2. By an order dated 30th of August, 1986, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Nasik, in Sessions Case No. 68 of 1986, he has been convicted for offences under Sections 326 and 324 of the Indian Penal Code and is sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three years under Section 326 and rigorous imprisonment for one year under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code. The said order of conviction and sentence is impugned in the present appeal. 2. At that trial, four accused were charged under Section 307, read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, and Section 324 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, for having, on the 19th of December, 1985, at about 8.30 p.m. near a Panshop at Madsangvi, Taluka Nasik, attempted to commit murder of P.W. 5 Mohan Runja Pekhale and for having caused hurts by a dangerous weapon i.e. iron bar and wooden logs, to P.W. 1 Runja. Sakharan Pekhale, P.W. 2 Hiraman Runja Pekhale and one Tukaram Runja Pekhale. By the impugned order, accused Nos. 1, 3 and 4 have been acquitted of all the charges. Accused No. 2 is acquitted of the offence under Section 307. He is, however, convicted for the offences under Sections 326 and 324, I.P.C. as stated above. 3. The witnesses, who are examined in support of the incident in question, are closed relations. P.W. 1 Runjais the father P.W. 2 Hiraman, P.W.5 Mohan and P.W. 6 Tanaji are his sons. P.W. 3 Motiram is their close relation. 4. At that time of the incident, Hiraman was proceeding bf road. He saw all the four accused near the Panpatti of Abhong. On seeing Hiraman accused Nos. 1 and 2 started abusing him. When Hiraman questioned them why they were abusing accused No. 1 and 2 beat him. All the accused beat Hiraman. Hiraman ran towards their field and complained to his father-Runja. Runja proceeded towards the village. He was followed by Mohan. They reached near the Panpatti shop. The four accused were present there. Runja asked accused No. 2 why they had assaulted Hiraman. Accused No. 2 said that they had assaulted and Runja may do whatever he liked. At that time accused No. 2 was holding iron rod. Runja proceeded towards the village. He was followed by Mohan. They reached near the Panpatti shop. The four accused were present there. Runja asked accused No. 2 why they had assaulted Hiraman. Accused No. 2 said that they had assaulted and Runja may do whatever he liked. At that time accused No. 2 was holding iron rod. He immediately gave a blow of iron rod on the head of Runja. Accused Nos. 3 and 4 started giving him kicks. Accused No. 1 was holding a wooden stick and he gave a blow on his head by the stick. Runja fell giddy and sat down. Mohan questioned the accused as to why the accused were beating Runja. All the four accused started assaulting. Mohan. Accused No. 1 assaulted Mohan with a wooden plank on his head and accused No. 2 with an iron rod on his head and shoulder. The accused, thereafter, left the place. The injured were lifted by Hiraman and Tanaji who came to the spot soon after the assault. Runja and Mohan were transported by their jeep to Nasik road Police Station. From there they were directed to go to the Nasik Civil Hospital. At the hospital. P.W, 10 P.S.I. Namdeo Chaudhari recorded the First Information Report (Exhibit 11), of Runja. 5. According to the prosecution, there was no particular enmity between the injured on the one side and the accused on the other which had prompted the assault According to Runja accused No. 2 had requested him to sell one of his lands to him. Runja did not oblige but sold it to his own nephew. That possibly had promoted the accused to mount the assault on the injured witnesses. 6. All the accused pleaded not guilty. Their defence was one of total denial. According to the defence, Runja had gone prepared with sticks with a view to assault the accused. When Runja and his sons began to assault the accused, they sustained accidental injuries. They claimed that they were innocent and entitled to an order of acquittal. 7. At the trial, the prosecution examined P.W. 1 Runja, who is an injured witness and is the first informant. His First Information Report is at Exhibit-H. Prosecution next examined P.W. 5 Mohan, a son of Runja, who is also an injured witness. They claimed that they were innocent and entitled to an order of acquittal. 7. At the trial, the prosecution examined P.W. 1 Runja, who is an injured witness and is the first informant. His First Information Report is at Exhibit-H. Prosecution next examined P.W. 5 Mohan, a son of Runja, who is also an injured witness. The prosecution next examined P.W. 2 Hiraman, another son of Runja, he also is an injured witness. He was involved in the earlier incident which took place near the Pan shop prior to the arrival of Runja and Mohan. The three injured were treated by P.W. 11 Dr. Ajit Patil. The medical certificate in respect of the injuries of P.W. 1 Runja is at Exhibit-43, that of P.W. 2 Hiraman is at Exhibit-42 and of P.W. 5 Mohan at Exhibit-4l. The accused had also sustained injuries. They were examined -by P.W. 4 Dr. Milind Kaushik. The injuries certificate of accused No. 1 is at Exhibit-23, accused No. 2 at Exhibit-20, accused No. 3 at Exhibit-21 and accused No. 4 at Exhibit-22. The injury sustained by P.W. 5 Mohan was serious. He was required to be operated upon. He was removed from Nasik Civil Hospital to I.J. Hospital. He was, there after, advised post operative rest which he took in the nursing home of P.W. 12 Dr. Vasant Pawar. He was in the nursing home between 29th December, 1985 to 19th January, 1986. 8. In addition to the above evidence, the prosecution inter alia examined P.W. 7 Bhausaheb Jagtap, a panch witness in whose presence accused No. 1 discovered a wooden plank (Article 4) vide a statement recorded in memorandum (Exhibit 27) and discovery panchanama (Exhibit 28). Similarly, it examined P.W. 8 Madhav Raje, another panch, in whose presence accused No. 4 produced an iron rod (Article 3) in pursuance of a statement recorded in memorandum (Exhibit 30) and the discovery panchanama (Exhibit-31). It next examined P.W. 9 Prabhakar Patil, a panch witness in whose presence accused No. 1 was arrested under Panchanama (Exhibit 33). Medical certificate in regard to the injuries sustained by accused No. 1 is at Exhibit 38. Finally the prosecution examined P.W. 10 Namdeo Chaudhari, a Police Sub Inspector who investigated the instant offence and filed a charge sheet against the accused. 9. Medical certificate in regard to the injuries sustained by accused No. 1 is at Exhibit 38. Finally the prosecution examined P.W. 10 Namdeo Chaudhari, a Police Sub Inspector who investigated the instant offence and filed a charge sheet against the accused. 9. As already stated, the learned Judge of the trial Court has discarded the evidence of the prosecution as far as accused Nos. 1,3 and 4 are concerned. He has however accepted the evidence of the prosecution in so far as it relates to accused No. 2 and has proceeded to pass the impugned order of conviction and sentence. 10. I have, with the assistance of Shri Pawar, the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of accused No. 2 and Shri Kachare the learned Public Prosecutor, gone through the entire evidence on record. I have heard each of them in support of their respective contentions. Having given my anxious considerations, in my view, the evidence, in so far as it relates to accused No. 2, is not such as can be safely relied upon in order to base an order of conviction and sentence against him. My reasons for the above finding are as follows: 11. It is undisputed that the incident in question has taken place in a crowded locality. The incident has taken place near a Pan shop near Bhari stop, a place used for loading vegetables. There are several shops which include a hotel, a barber shop etc. Even, according to the witnesses who are examined, a large crowd had gathered. At the trial, several independent witnesses such as Abhang Panwala, Somnath Barwe and Dnyaneshwar Bidwe were cited. The prosecution, however, has failed to examine these and other independent witnesses and has chosen to examine only witnesses who are closely related to the injured. The evidence of the witnesses who are highly interested, therefore, requires to be closely scrutinised before any reliance could be placed. 12. As far as the assault on P.W. 1 Runja is concerned, he is first alleged to have been assaulted by accused No. 2 with an iron rod. He was assaulted both on his head and shoulder. He was, thereafter, assaulted by accused No. 1 with a wooden plank on his head. On receiving these injuries Runja fell giddy and fell down. The injury certificate in respect of Runja is at Exhibit-43. He was assaulted both on his head and shoulder. He was, thereafter, assaulted by accused No. 1 with a wooden plank on his head. On receiving these injuries Runja fell giddy and fell down. The injury certificate in respect of Runja is at Exhibit-43. It shows that Runja had sustained only one injury on the head. According to Dr. P.W. 11 Ajit Patil, the said injury is possible either by an iron bar or a wooden plank. It would, thus, appear that the oral evidence regarding the attack on Runja is not consistent with the medical evidence. Only one injury is found on the head. Hence, that injury can be attributed either to accused No. 1 or accused No. 2. I do not find any reason why the injury can be attributed only to accused No. 2 and why not to accused No. 1. 13. As far as the injuries to P.W. 5 Mohan are concerned, he is supposed to have sustained one injury on head with a wooden plank at the hands of the accused No. 1 and two injuries with an iron rod at the hands of accused No. 2, one on the head and the other on the shoulder. He has further received kick and fist blows from accused Nos. 3 and 4. This is the oral evidence in regard to the assault on Mohan. The injury certificate in respect of Mohan is at Exhibit 41. The same shows that Mohan has sustained only one head injury and he has not sustained any injury on the shoulder. Here again, one would find that the oral evidence is not consistent with the medical evidence. As per the oral evidence, he ought to have sustained two injuries on the head and one on the shoulder. The medical certificate, however, shows that he had sustained only one injury on the head. That injury is possible either by an iron rod, by wooden plank or even by a fall, vide the evidence of P.W. 11 Dr. Ajit Patil. In the circumstances, I do not find how the injury found on the person of P.W. 5 Mohan, can be fastened only on accused No. 2 and not on accused No. 1. 14. The iron rod (Article 3) is alleged to have been used by accused No. 2 for mounting an assault both on P.W. l Runja and P.W. 5 Mohan. 14. The iron rod (Article 3) is alleged to have been used by accused No. 2 for mounting an assault both on P.W. l Runja and P.W. 5 Mohan. The same, however, is not discovered by accused No. 2 but is discovered by accused No. 4 vide memorandum (Exhibit 27) and panchanama (Exhibit 28). The same is not identified either by Runja or Mohan who were the victims of the assault but is identified by P.W. 3 Motiram. It is not the case of Motiram that he was assaulted by the said iron rod. The evidence of discovery, therefore, fails to inspire confidence and does not further the prosecution case for the purpose of implicating accused No. 2. 15. As far as accused No. 2 is concerned, it is not the case of the prosecution that he was already armed with an iron rod when the earlier incident in respect of the assault on P.W. 2 Hiraman took place. According to P.W. 3 Motiram after Runja came on the scene accused No. 2 went towards his house and returned within 4 or 5 minutes with the iron rod. It has come in the evidence of P.W. 1 Runja that accused Nos. 2 to 4 live in their field, which is at a distance of about one and a half miles from their field. It has further come in the evidence of P.W. 5 Mohan that the house of P.W. 3 Motiram is 200 to 300 ft. from the spot of incident. The evidence of Motiram that accused No. 2 went towards his house and returned with an iron rod within 4 or 5 minutes is therefore doubtful. 16. The evidence of P.W. 4 Dr. Milind Kaushik shows that the accused Nos. 1, 2 and 3 had sustained injuries. Their medical certificate are at Exhibits 23. 21 and 20 respectively. It is true that these injuries are not severe and they are minor in nature. However the prosecution witnesses have not at all explained the said injuries. The possibility of the full and true disclosure not having come before the Court cannot reasonably be ruled out 17. It then appears that as far as P.W. 1 Runja and P.W. 5 Mohan are concerned their evidence is found to the exaggerated. Their evidence is found to be false as far as the same relates to the complicity of accused Nos. It then appears that as far as P.W. 1 Runja and P.W. 5 Mohan are concerned their evidence is found to the exaggerated. Their evidence is found to be false as far as the same relates to the complicity of accused Nos. 1, 3 and 4. It would in the circumstances be hazardous to place reliance on the very same evidence in order to bring home the guilt against accused No. 2. Merely because no omissions vis-a-vis the First Information Report and the statement before the police is brought on record. the same cannot lend assurance to their evidence as a whole which on important issues regarding the involvement of the other accused is found to be false. In the circumstances. I am constrained to hold that the prosecution has failed to bring home the guilt against the appellant-original accused No. 2 beyond reasonable doubt He is therefore entitled to an order of acquittal. 18. For the foregoing reasons. appeal is allowed. The impugned ORDER and order dated the 30th of August. 1986 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. Nasik in Sessions Case No. 68 of 1986 in so far as it convicts and sentences the appellant-original accused No. 2 for the offence punishable under Sections 326 and 324 of the Indian Penal Code is set aside and the appellant-original accused No. 2 is acquitted. His bail bonds shall stand cancelled. Appeal allowed.