ORDER 1. This criminal revision is directed against the judgment dated 14-2-2003 delivered by the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Mahasamund in Criminal Appeal No. 149/200 1, whereby while affirming the conviction of the applicant herein under Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mahasamund in Criminal Case No.10 12/1995 the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for 3 years and fine of Rs.3,000/- was reduced to rigorous imprisonment for 2 years and fine of Rs.3,000/-. 2. Briefly stated the prosecution case is that Vaidehi, the wife of the applicant herein was living in her maternal home at Village Baldidih since a year prior to the date of occurrence. The applicant had, on 21-4-1995, gone to Village Baldidih to attend the wedding of the sister of Vaidehi. On the date of occurrence, at about 2 P.M., the applicant asked Vaidehi to accompany him to her matrimonial home and on her saying that she would accompany him after having meals, the applicant went to the nearby room, fetched a Tangiya and assaulted Vaidehi by the Tangiya on the left elbow. Blood started oozing from the wound. The applicant thereafter ran away with the Tangiya. Sister Bodhanibai, P. W.-2, her husband Udhav Kumar Nishad. P.W.-3, Parmanand, P.W.-4, brother of Vaidehi, Hembai, P.W.-8. mother of Vaidehi and Renuka, P. W.-9, wife of Parman and saw the occurrence. Report was lodged at 3: 15 P.M. by Vaidehi on 21-4-1995 at Police Station Pithoura. Dr. Mrs. P. Baghel, P.W.-6 examined Vaidehi at 4: 10 P.M. on 21-4-1995 and found one lacerated wound over left elbow joint 7cms.x5cms.x2cms. skin deep, bone visible with ftesh bleeding. She opined that the injury which was grievous in nature could have been caused by a hard and blunt object within 2 hours. She referred Vaidehi to O.K.Hospital for hospitalization and management. Vaidehi was admitted at D.K.Hospital. Raipur on 21-4-1995. It was found that she had compound ftacture ofthe left olecran. Vaidehi was discharged on 25-4-1995 vide discharge certificate Ex.P-I, which was proved by Dr. K. Sudarshan, P. W.-5 retired Professor of Surgery in Orthopedics. After completion of investigation, the applicant was prosecuted under Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The applicant abjured the guilt and pleaded that when he asked Vaidehi to accompany him to his house, Udhav, P.W.-3 prevented Vaidehi from going with the applicant and ran towards the applicant with an Axe. After completion of investigation, the applicant was prosecuted under Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The applicant abjured the guilt and pleaded that when he asked Vaidehi to accompany him to his house, Udhav, P.W.-3 prevented Vaidehi from going with the applicant and ran towards the applicant with an Axe. At that point of time, while Vaidehi was preventing Udhav from assaulting him, he left for his home and did not know how Vaidehi sustained the injury. 4. The prosecution examined as many as 9 witnesses. Relying on the prosecution evidence, the Chief Judicial Magistrate convicted the applicant under Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for 3 years and fine of Rs.3,000/-. 5. Being aggrieved, the applicant preferred Criminal Appeal No. 149/200 1 before the 151 Additional Sessions Judge, Mahasamund. While affirming the conviction of the applicant under Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code, learned 151 Additional Sessions Judge reduced the substantive sentence to 2 years' rigorous imprisonment. Hence this revision. 6. Shri Adil Minhaj, learned counsel for the applicant argued that the conviction of the applicant under Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code is contrary to law because the testimony of Vaidehi that the applicant had assaulted her with the sharp side of the Tangiya was rendered wholly unreliable in view of the evidence of Dr. Mrs. P. Baghel, P.W.-6 and Dr. K. Sudarshan, P.W.-5, who have categorically stated that a lacerated wound could not be the result of an assault from the sharp side of the Tangiya. It was further argued that Vaidehi had admitted in paragraph 4 that after the assault, the applicant had left the Tangiya at the place of occurrence. Therefore, the seizure of the Tangiya from the applicant on 24-41995 was of no avail to the prosecution. It was also argued that the prosecution witnesses being near relatives were highly interested witnesses. Vaidehi had admitted that since 3 years prior to the occurrence, the applicant did not visit her home and she was also residing in her maternal house during the said period. She had also admitted that the marital relationship between her and the applicant had come to an end. Vaidehi had admitted that since 3 years prior to the occurrence, the applicant did not visit her home and she was also residing in her maternal house during the said period. She had also admitted that the marital relationship between her and the applicant had come to an end. On these premises, learned counsel for the applicant urged that conviction of the applicant under Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code, being wholly contrary to law, was liable to be set aside. 7. On the other hand, Shri Sameer Behar, learned Panel Lawyer for the State/non-applicant argued in support of the impugned judgment. 8. Having heard the rival submissions, I have perused the record of Criminal Case No.1 012/1995 as also the impugned judgment in Criminal Appeal No.149/200 1. The Rojnamcha Sanha recorded on the basis of a report lodged by Vaidehi on 21-4-1995 was incorporated in the F.LR., EX.P-5. It shows that even at the time of lodging the report Vaidehi was not certain as to the object with which the applicant had assaulted her. She had stated that the applicant had assaulted her with a Tangiya like object near the el bow. 9. Vaidehi did not depose that immediately after the occurrence Udhav, P.W.-3 and Parmanand, P. W.-4 had chased the applicant and apprehended him in the Gali. Even the F.LR., EX.P-5 did not mention this fact or that at the time of lodging the report, Vaidehi and her relatives had brought the applicant tied by a rope to the police station along with a Tangiya. On the contrary, Vaidehi deposed that after the occurrence inside her house, none of her relatives had gone out of the house. In paragraph 4 of her testimony, Vaidehi deposed that the applicant had left the Tangiya in her house, whereas Udhav, P. W.-3 testified that after the assault they had chased the applicant in the Gali and apprehended him and after tying him with a rope, taken the applicant to the police station and at that time the applicant was holding the Tangiya in his hand. In paragraph 2, he has categorically stated that even at the police station, the applicant held the Tangiya in his hand. In paragraph 2, he has categorically stated that even at the police station, the applicant held the Tangiya in his hand. Not only this, Udhav, P. W.-3 stated that after assaulting Vaidehi, the applicant had also assaulted his wife Bodhanibai, P. W.-2 by the Tangiya on her back, whereas Bodhanibai, P.W.-2 did not depose about any assault on her by the Tangiya. In this manner, the testimony ofUdhav, P. W.- 3 is rendered wholly unworthy of credit. 10. Although Parmanand, P. W.-4 categorically admitted in paragraph 4 that relations with the applicant were far from cordial, Udhav, P. W.- 3 suppressed this fact. Even Vaidehi, P. W.-l has deposed that since 3 years prior to the occurrence, she was living with her two children in her maternal home and had left her husband, i.e., the applicant who did not visit her maternal home since over 3 years. She further admitted that during the above period marital relationship with the applicant had come to an end. It, therefore, appears highly improbable that the applicant would go to the maternal house of Vaidehi and ask her to accompany him to her matrimonial home. In the light of the highly strained relationship for over 3 years, it also appears highly improbable that on the mere asking of the applicant, Vaidehi would at once agree to go with him after having meals. It also belies natural human conduct that even though Vaidehi had agreed to accompany the applicant immediately after meals, the applicant would assault her with a Tangiya without any rhyme or reason. 11. Hembai, P. W.-8 has admitted in paragraph 4 that she did not witness the applicant assaulting Vaidehi. Similarly, Renuka, P.W.-9 also admitted in paragraph 5 that she did not see the applicant assaulting Vaidehi by means of a Tangiya. She further admitted that on hearing shouts when she saw the injured Vaidehi, the applicant was not present there. The admission by Hembai, P.W.-8 and Renuka, P. W. -9 also renders the prosecution story about assault by the sharp side of the Tangiya by the applicant on Vaidehi extremely doubtful. 12. The testimony of Udhav, P. W.- 3 is nothing but a bundle of lies because his wife Bodhanibai, P. W.-2 did not corroborate him regarding the assault by the applicant on her. 12. The testimony of Udhav, P. W.- 3 is nothing but a bundle of lies because his wife Bodhanibai, P. W.-2 did not corroborate him regarding the assault by the applicant on her. The testimony of Udhav, P.W.-3 that the accused was tied with a rope and taken to the police station along with the Tangiya is also rendered false because this fact did not find place in the report lodged by Vaidehi. Had this fact been true, the applicant would have been arrested on 21-4-1995 and the Tangiya would also have been seized by the police on the same day. In the present case, the Tangiya is alleged to have been seized on 24-4-1995 from the applicant. 13. Medical evidence of Dr. Mrs. P. Baghel, P.W.-6 also does not corroborate the testimony of Vaidehi, P. W. -I, who had narrated that the applicant had assaulted her by the sharp side of the Tangiya. Dr. Mrs. P. Baghel, P. W.-6 deposed that the lacerated wound found on the left elbow of Va ide hi could have been caused by a hard and blunt object and not by the sharp side of a Tangiya. Even Dr. K. Sudarshan, P.W.-5 has deposed that the injury sustained by Vaidehi could not have been caused by the sharp side of a Tangiya. 14. Bodhanibai, P.W.-2 is the elder sister of Vaidehi, P.W.-l. Udhav, P.W.3 is the husband of Bodhanibai, P.W.-2. Parmanand, P.W.-4 is the brother of Vaidehi, P.W.-I. Hembai, P.W.-8 is the mother of Vaidehi, P.\V.-l and Renuka, P.W.-9 is the wife of Parman and, P.W.-4. Thus, all the witnesses examined by the prosecution are highly interested witnesses. Despite the fact that Udhav, P. W.-3 and Parmanand, P. W.-4 have deposed that they had chased the applicant and apprehended him in the Gali the prosecution did not examine any villager to corroborate this fact. Udhav, P.W.-3 has further deposed that on apprehending the applicant, they had called the villagers, but yet no villager was examined by the prosecution. It thus appears highly improbable that despite strained relationship for over 3 years, the applicant would go to the maternal house of Vaidehi and ask her to accompany him to her matrimonial home. Even if this is accepted, it is absolutely impossible that the applicant would have assaulted Vaidehi even though she was willing to accompany him after having food. It thus appears highly improbable that despite strained relationship for over 3 years, the applicant would go to the maternal house of Vaidehi and ask her to accompany him to her matrimonial home. Even if this is accepted, it is absolutely impossible that the applicant would have assaulted Vaidehi even though she was willing to accompany him after having food. The testimony ofUdhav, P.W.-3 is nothing but a bundle of lies. Hembai, P.W.-8 and Renuka, P.W.-9 did not witness the applicant assaulting Vaidehi by the Tangiya. For want of independent available corroboration, the testimony of Udhav, P. W. -3 and Parmanand, P. W.-4 that they had chased the applicant and brought him from the Cali and thereafter the villagers had come, is rendered highly unreliable and unworthy of credit. 15. Bodhanibai, P. W. -2 stated that she did not see the Tangiya with which the applicant had assaulted Vaidehi. She denied that since 3 years prior to the occurrence, Vaidehi was residing at her maternal home, whereas Vaidehi, P. W.-1 herself deposed in paragraph 7 that she was living separately from her husband since 3 years prior to the occurrence and a Chhorchhutti had literally taken place between them. She also admitted having strained relationship with the applicant. She categorically admitted that after the assault she had shouted, but none of her family members went out side the house. This also renders the testimony ofUdhav, P.W.-3 and Parmanand, P.W.-4 that they had apprehended the applicant in the Cali unworthy of credit. Although Vaidehi stated in paragraph 5 that her clothes were stained with blood yet she did not show her blood stained clothes to the police. Bodhanibai, P. W.-2 stated that she had washed the blood stained clothes of Va ide hi after the occurrence. Tins also renders the testimony ofVaidehi doubtful. 16. Although Vaidehi stated in paragraph 5 that her clothes were stained with blood yet she did not show her blood stained clothes to the police. Bodhanibai, P. W.-2 stated that she had washed the blood stained clothes of Va ide hi after the occurrence. Tins also renders the testimony ofVaidehi doubtful. 16. Having considered the evidence led by the prosecution in its entirety with utmost circumspection, I am of the considered opinion that the trial Court as also the lower appellate Court did not consider that the prosecution story was highly improbable, that medical evidence did not support the assault by the applicant by the sharp side of the Tangiya, that blood stained clothes of Va ide hi were not seized, that testimony ofUdhav, P.W.-3 and Parmanand, P.W.-4 was a bundle of lies in view of the admission by Vaidehi that none of her relatives went out ofthe house after the occurrence. Even Bodhanibai, P.W.-2 did not state that after the assault, the applicant ran away and was chased by Udhav, P. W.- 3 and Parmanand, P. W.-4 and tied with a rope. The prosecution did not adduce any independent villager who had seen the applicant being apprehended by Udhav, P. W.-3 and Parmanand, P. W.-4 and taken to the police station. Even Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police, N.K.Swarnakar, P.W.-7 did not depose that at the time of the report by Vaidehi, her relatives had brought the applicant to the police station after tying him with a rope along with the Tangiya. 17. In the facts and circumstances since the prosecution story is rendered highly improbable and doubtful the applicant is entitled to the benefit of doubt. So far as admission by the applicant in his examination under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is concerned, it is trite law that the statement made by an accused during his examination under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has to be read as a whole. It is not permissible to read the inculpatory part and exclude the exculpatory pmi of the statement. If the statement given by the applicant in answer to question No.28 is accepted as a whole, it would show that the applicant is not the author of the injury sustained by Vaidehi and has been falsely implicated. It is not permissible to read the inculpatory part and exclude the exculpatory pmi of the statement. If the statement given by the applicant in answer to question No.28 is accepted as a whole, it would show that the applicant is not the author of the injury sustained by Vaidehi and has been falsely implicated. Conviction of the applicant by the trial Court and affirmed by the lower appellate Court is thus based on misreading of evidence and omission to consider material contradictions in the evidence of interested witnesses and the improbability of the allegations against the applicant and thus being contrary to law is liable to be set aside in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. 18. In the result, the criminal revision is allowed. Conviction of the applicant under Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code and the sentence awarded thereunder are set aside. The applicant is acquitted of the charge under Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code after giving him the benefit of doubt. Revision Allowed.