Judgment: Oral Judgment: 1. By this Revision Application, the applicants (original accused) in Sessions Trial No. 79/1999 tried before the Court of 4th Assistant Sessions Judge, Amravati, are challenging their conviction for offence punishable under section 332 read with Section 34; as also u/s 353 read with Section 34 of the IPC. 2 The facts of the case as alleged, are as follows:- That on 16.7.1999, one Head Constable-Ramdas (Buckle No. 48) of Police Station, Mahuli, lodged report to the Police Station on at about 7.00 p.m. alleging that he was assaulted and abused. It is alleged that he had received fists blow on his face, with the result, his tooth got loosened and he received a bleeding injury. On the basis of the report, an offence was registered against accused and investigation followed. It is also alleged that injured was sent to the Hospital for medical examination. After submission of the charge sheet since the offences punishable under section 333, 353 read with Section 34 of the IPC were triable by the Court of Sessions, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions at Amravati and tried before the learned 4th Assistant Sessions Judge, Amravati being Sessions Trial No. 79/1999, in which by judgment and order dated 26.11.2002, the learned trial Judge was pleased to convict the accused for offence punishable u/s 332 read with section 34 IPC as also u/s 353 read with section 34 IPC. For offence punishable u/s 332 read with section 34 IPC, the accused were sentenced to suffer RI for two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-by each of them, in default, to suffer further RI for 15 days by each of them; and for offence punishable u/s 353 read with section 34 IPC, no separate sentence was passed against them, on the ground that offence was of similar nature. The conviction and sentence was challenged before the Sessions Court, Amravati, by means of Criminal Appeal No.64/2002. The same was heard and decided by learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Amravati, by impugned judgment and order dated 2nd December, 2004. 3. Heard Mr. A.M. Gordey, the learned counsel for the Revisionapplicant as also Mr D B Yengal, the learned APP. Perused the record and proceedings. 4. The same was heard and decided by learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Amravati, by impugned judgment and order dated 2nd December, 2004. 3. Heard Mr. A.M. Gordey, the learned counsel for the Revisionapplicant as also Mr D B Yengal, the learned APP. Perused the record and proceedings. 4. The learned counsel for the applicants contended that although it was referred to in the judgment of the trial Court that accused Ramchandra was sent to Hospital as Constable-Ramdas had some bleeding injuries, no medical evidence was adduced at the trial. Furthermore, it is contended that apart from interested evidence of policemen, no independent witness was examined to prove offence punishable u/ss. 332, 353 read with section 34 of the IPC. According to the learned counsel for petitioners, the offences were not proved beyond reasonable doubt in the trial Court and; the Appellate Court upon assumption that the accused must have got annoyed with the act of Ramdas and, therefore, the natural consequences followed, as observed in para 15, proceeded to maintain the conviction and to dismiss the appeal. 5. Mr D.B. Yengal, the learned APP finds it difficult to wriggle out from the court query as to why no medical evidence was adduced in the trial Court although it is specifically mentioned that Ramdas was sent to Hospital for medical examination. In the case of physical assault when it is alleged that grievous injury was inflicted upon the injured and that bleeding injury was caused, it was expected that such injured person would be referred immediately for medical treatment in the Hospital, more particularly when injured person is none other than the Head Constable from the Police Station concerned. Furthermore, when it is case of prosecution when he was sent for medical examination to the Hospital, there can be no excuse for suppression of medical evidence in such case. The offence in such a case has to be proved beyond all reasonable doubt. The conviction cannot be based on surmises, assumptions or conjectures as observed by the lower Appellate Court in Para No.15, “that they must have got annoyed with the act of Ramdas, therefore, natural consequences followed”. On going through the evidence, I find that for reporting the incident, the complainant had waited till the late evening. The conviction cannot be based on surmises, assumptions or conjectures as observed by the lower Appellate Court in Para No.15, “that they must have got annoyed with the act of Ramdas, therefore, natural consequences followed”. On going through the evidence, I find that for reporting the incident, the complainant had waited till the late evening. It does appear from the record and proceedings that on 16.7.1999, one of the applicant no.1 Ramchandra Jaishriram Pachghare had reported the incident which occurred at about 10.00 a.m. to Mahuli Police Station. It further appears that the report was received at about 13.30 hours vide Exh.16 which appeared to have been signed by Ramchandra Pachghare. That being so, it is difficult to believe that in the evening at about 7.00 p.m., Ramchandra will go to the Police Station to assault the Head constable on the ground that constable is not recording statement correctly. In the absence of medical evidence led in the case, there is further doubt as to genuineness of the incident, as alleged. PW 1-Raju Punjaji who was examined on behalf of the prosecution, deposed that he did not attend at Police Station on 16.7.1999 for spot panchnama; but had simply signed it. Learned Prosecutor who cross-examined him, suggested that the said witness was driving auto at that time. In the absence of necessary medical evidence the prosecution case do give rise to strong suspicion against the accused but suspicion howsoever strong cannot be a substitute for proof of the offences which are required to be established beyond all reasonable doubts. No conviction can be based upon assumptions or surmises without well grounded reasons or on the basis of perfunctory appreciation. The observations by the Appellate Court in para 15 that the accused must have got annoyed with the act of Ramdas and, therefore, the natural consequences followed also indicate doubt in the mind of learned Appellate Judge as to the guilt of the accused. 6. For all these reasons, it does appear that both the Courts below fell in manifest error in ignoring the fact that medical evidence was essential, but was absent, considering the case of the prosecution that injured was sent to Hospital for medical examination. Moreover, spot panchnama is also extremely doubtful as Panch did not support it and was declared hostile and cross- examined by the prosecution. Moreover, spot panchnama is also extremely doubtful as Panch did not support it and was declared hostile and cross- examined by the prosecution. For all these reasons, it appears to be an exceptional case, wherein manifest error crept in the appreciation of evidence. In the absence of well-grounded reasons, I must conclude that the prosecution case was not proved beyond reasonable doubt and the accused ought to have been granted the benefit of doubt. 7. In the result, Revision Application is allowed. The conviction and sentence in the judgment and order dated 2.12.2004 passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Amravati arising out of the judgment and order dated 26.11.2002 passed by 4th Asst. Sessions Judge, is set aside. The applicants are acquitted of all the offences with which they were charged. Their bail bonds shall stand discharged.