Judgment ( 1. ) The appellants/accused have directed this appeal under Section 374(2) of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 being aggrieved by the judgment dated 14-10-1999 passed by Ilnd Additional Sessions Judge, Seoni in Sessions Trial No. 91/93 convicting and sentencing to each of them under Sections 323 and 307 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code, for R. I. 6 months in earlier Section while R. I. for 4 years with fine of Rs. 500/- in default of depositing the fine, further 3 months R. I. in latter. ( 2. ) The facts giving rise to this appeal in short are that on 18-10-1992 at about 6 Oclock in the morning the complainant Ramesh Kumar Sen while returning to village Khamariya from some pond after taking the bath, on the way the appellants Dhanna lashed with lathi, while Panna and Basant lashed with steel rod anticipated and abused him with filthy languages and by giving the criminal threat, presurised him to compound the criminal case pending against them, at his instance for some incident of the year 1989. In continuation of it, the complainant was subjected to beating by the appellants by means of sticks and steel rods, resultantly, sustained various injuries on different parts of his person. Thereafter, by saying that they will see to Mahesh and Ram Singh, came to the village, whereby anticipating the Mahesh, Ram Singh and Rikkhi beaten them by sticks and also gave the threat to kill them. The incident was witnessed by Gulab, Mohan, Anil and Dheeraj, who came there to rescue them. On lodging the report at Police Station Lakhnadone by complainant Ramesh a crime for the offence under Sections 341, 323, 294 and 506-B of I. P. C. was registered against the appellants. The injured persons were taken to the hospital where their pre-MLC reports were prepared. Looking to the seriousness of the injuries sustained by Ram Singh, he was referred to Medical Hospital, Jabalpur, where further treatment was provided to him by some senior doctors. In investigation pre-MLC reports and the report of medical hospital were received. Necessary panchnamas and other papers regarding seizure were prepared. Interrogatory statements of the witnesses were recorded. Looking to the seriousness of the injuries sustained by Ram Singh, he was referred to Medical Hospital, Jabalpur, where further treatment was provided to him by some senior doctors. In investigation pre-MLC reports and the report of medical hospital were received. Necessary panchnamas and other papers regarding seizure were prepared. Interrogatory statements of the witnesses were recorded. On medical report, it was revealed that the injury sustained by Ram Singh on his head was sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature on which Section 307 of I. P. C. was also inserted in the matter. On concluding the investigation, the appellants were charge-sheeted for the above mentioned offence. ( 3. ) After committal, on framing the charges against the appellants they adjured the same on which, the trial was held. After recording the evidence, on appreciation holding guilty to the appellants each of them was sentenced as stated above. Being dissatisfied with such conviction and sentence, the appellants have come forward to this Court with this appeal. ( 4. ) Shri Sudhir Shrivastava, learned appearing counsel of the appellants after taking me through recorded evidence and the exhibited documents available on record argued that the prosecution has failed to prove the alleged case beyond reasonable doubt against any of the appellants. He further said that in the lack of any corroboration of the prosecution story from any independent source or witnesses and in view of inimical relations between the parties the depositions of the injured witnesses was neither reliable nor sufficient to hold conviction. But the Sessions Court has committed grave error in holding the alleged conviction. In such premises, firstly he prayed for acquittal of the appellants. In alternative, he argued that even on upholding the findings of the trial Court holding the appellants are responsible for the alleged incident even then, looking to the nature of medical evidence available on record and in the lack of any x-ray plate and report of injury No. 3 sustained by Ram Singh and also in the lack of proper x-ray report relating to the date of incident, such injuries could not be treated to be grievous or sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature and in such premises, the conviction of the appellants under Section 307 read with Section 34 of I. P. C. is not sustainable. He further said that besides the aforesaid injury of Ramsingh and Rikkhi, the other injuries sustained by Ramsingh and the other victims, as per medical opinion were simple in nature. In the lack of admissible x- ray report and its plate the aforesaid injuries sustained by Ram Singh and Rikkhi should be treated to be simple in nature hence, in any case, the conviction of the appellants under Section 307 read with Section 34 of I. P. C. is not sustainable and prayed to allow this appeal accordingly. ( 5. ) On the other hand, Shri Rajesh Tiwari, learned Government Advocate while responding the aforesaid arguments said, the findings of the trial Court holding the conviction and sentence against the appellants being based on proper appreciation of evidence are in in conformity with law. The same do not require any interference at this stage either for acquittal or for reducing the jail sentence of any of the appellants and prayed for dismissal of this appeal. ( 6. ) After hearing the parties, I have carefully gone through the record and also perused the impugned judgment. ( 7. ) It is apparent fact on record that the alleged incident took place at about 6 Oclock in the morning and on the same day, the injured Ramesh lodged the first information report with Police Station at 10.00 Oclock in the morning just after four hours of the incident in which, not only the accused names were mentioned but, the description of their alleged act was also stated. Subsequently, at trial, on recording the deposition the complainant Ramesh (PW-1) stated the version in consonance with the F. I. R. He deposed the entire incident happened with him and also the incident happened with the other victims at village. Even on carrying out the lengthy cross-examination of these witnesses the material facts stated by him in-chief has not been destroyed in any manner. He also stated regarding injury sustained by him in the alleged incident. His version is further supported by Rikkhiram (PW-2), Mahesh Sen (PW-3) and Ram Singh (PW-5) to whom he met immediately after the incident on reaching to village where their beating was being carried out by the appellants. The above mentioned victims Rikkhiram, Mahesh Sen and Ram Singh also stated the entire incident and the act of each of the appellants committed with them. The above mentioned victims Rikkhiram, Mahesh Sen and Ram Singh also stated the entire incident and the act of each of the appellants committed with them. Accordingly, the story put forth by the prosecution has been proved by the complainant as well as by other injured examined witnesses. True, such story has not been fully supported by any independent source of the witnesses, but in view of the factum of previous enmity between the parties and the deposition of the victims which are further supported by the medical evidence, pre-MLC Ex. P./4 Ex. P./5 and Ex. P./6 proved by doctor Jagdish (Prasad) (PW-4), it could not be said that the incident was not caused by the appellants. In such premises, I have not found any perversity or infirmity in appreciation of the evidence by the trial Court holding the appellants are guilty for the alleged beating of the victims, thus, the findings of the impugned judgment holding the appellants guilty for the alleged incident are hereby affirmed. ( 8. ) In the alleged incident, the complainant Ramesh sustained following injuries as described by doctor Jagdish Prasad (PW-4) in MLC report Ex. P./3. "1. Lacerated wound (Lt) side forehead long " x " scalp deep. 2. Lacerated wound (Rt) eyebrow lat 1/3 2" x 11" scalp deep. 3. Contusion (Lt) wrist Lat scale 3" x 2". 4. Abrasion (Rt) glutial region 1" x 2". 5. Contusion (It) lower by upperls 4" x 1". 6. Contusion (It) Knee lat. side 3" x 1". 7. Contusion (It) shoulder 3" x 1". 8. Contusion (Rt) clavicle med 1/3 2" x 1". According to the opinion of the doctor except the injury No. 3. all other injuries were simple in nature. No opinion regarding injury No. 3 was given in such report. It was stated that after carrying out the x-ray, the opinion regarding this injury could be given. Undisputedly, no x-ray plate or x-ray report regarding this victim was either filed or proved on record. In the lack of such x-ray plate and x-ray report, the abovementioned injury No. 3 could not be treated to be either grievous in nature or sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature. In such premises, the nature of this injury could be treated only simple. In the lack of such x-ray plate and x-ray report, the abovementioned injury No. 3 could not be treated to be either grievous in nature or sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature. In such premises, the nature of this injury could be treated only simple. Thus, in view of all injuries of this victim being simple in nature, the appellants could be convicted for the same only under Section 323 read with Section 34 of I.P. C. and not in any other offence. ( 9. ) So far as injuries sustained by Mahesh Sen and Rikkhiram are concerned, the same as described by the doctor in their MLC reports, for ready reference are being mentioned hereinafter. (A) As per M. L. C. report Ex. R/4 Mahesh Sen sustained the following injuries :- "1. L.W. scalp occipital region long placed 2" x " scalp deep" 2. Abrasion (It) forearm mid 1/3 medial side 1" x ". 3. Abrasion (lt) thumb palm side " x ". 4. C/o pain back no injury. All injuries simple caused by hard and blunt object within 24 hours. (B) As per M. L. C. report Ex. R/5 are Rikkhiram sustained the following injuries. "1. Lacerated wound top of skull " x " scalp deep. 2. Contusion (lt) hand dorsum 1" x 1". 3. C/o pain no injury. Both injuries caused by hard and blunt object simple in nature. Duration within 24 hours. ( 10. ) As per MLC report Ext. P./6, Ramsingh (PW-5) had sustained following injury. "1. Lacerated wound forehead " x " scalp deep. Adv. x-ray skull A. P. Lat ( 11. ) It is noted that pre-MLC report was prepared immediately after bringing the victim Ramsingh to the hospital. Although, he was semi unconscious, but his pulse and blood pressure was found normal. By advising the x-ray he was referred to Medical Hospital, Jabalpur for further treatment. According to Ex. P./13 prepared by Dr. Arena Choudhary, at Medical Hospital Jabalpur Ramsingh sustained the fracture in left frontal bone with two abrasions one in the left hand while another one on left hip. Although on recording the deposition such Dr. Smt. Arena Choudhary (PW-9) deposed about the aforesaid fracture, but in para 6 of her cross- examination she categorically admitted that she did not examine the x-ray plate with respect of the alleged fracture. Although on recording the deposition such Dr. Smt. Arena Choudhary (PW-9) deposed about the aforesaid fracture, but in para 6 of her cross- examination she categorically admitted that she did not examine the x-ray plate with respect of the alleged fracture. It shows that such opinion was given by such doctor only clinically and without examining or observing the x-ray plate. It is settled proposition of law that in the absence of sufficient proof of x-ray plate and x-ray report on record, the fracture of the bone could not inferred. As per available record in spite advising to cany out the x-ray by doctor while preparing the pre-MLC report, the x-ray regarding head injury of Ramsingh was not carried out up to 19-1-1993 and on carrying out the same on 19-1-1993 the multiple liner depressed fracture was found on right frontal and parietal bone of Ram Singh as deposed by (PW-10) Dr. Govind Singh, Radiologist who carried out and proved such x-ray plate and x-ray report Ex. P./14 and Ex. P./15 respectively. Such report appears to be suspicious on various reasons. Firstly, as per Dr. Arena Choudhary (PW-9) the victim Ramsingh sustained the fracture of left frontal bone. While, as per deposition of Dr. Govind Singh (PW- 10), Ramsingh sustained the fracture of right frontal and parietal bone. The prosecution has failed to explain such inconsistency of such depositions on record. Secondly, un- disputedly the alleged incident took place on 18- 10-1992 and such x-ray was carried out after 3 months on 19-1-1993 in which the fracture of the aforesaid bone was found by Dr. Govind Singh (PW-10). Looking to the nature of such injury and fracture even if it was sustained by the victim Ramsingh on the alleged date of the incident, then according to medical science, after starting the callous formation within 6 to 8 weeks the same might have been cured and after 3 months from the incident the fracture described in x-ray plate and report Ex. P./14 and P./15 carried out on 19-1-1993 could not have been connected with the alleged incident. The same might have been sustained by the victim in some other incident. ( 12. P./14 and P./15 carried out on 19-1-1993 could not have been connected with the alleged incident. The same might have been sustained by the victim in some other incident. ( 12. ) In view of the aforesaid discussion, in the lack of sufficient admissible evidence regarding alleged fracture in the frontal bone of Ramsingh there is no option with me except to treat the aforesaid injury to be a simple in nature. Therefore, it is held that neither of the victims has sustained any grievous injury or the injury which was sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature. In such premises, the conviction and sentence of the appellants under Section 307/34 of I.P.C. cannot be sustained and the same deserves to be and is hereby set aside. ( 13. ) In the aforesaid premises by allowing this appeal in part, the conviction and sentence of the appellants under Section 307/34 is hereby set aside and instead to it, the appellants are held guilty under Section 323/ 34 of I. P. C. for causing the injury to Ram Singh and Rikkhi in the subsequent incident and they are punished with the sentence for which they have already suffered in judicial custody between 21-10-1992 to 5-11-1992 but with additional fine of Rs. 1,000/- against each of them. So far as the conviction and sentence of the appellants under Section 323/ 34 with respect of the earlier incident causing injury to Ramesh is concerned, the judgment of the trial Court in that regard is hereby affirmed. The above imposed amount of fine is to be deposited by each of the appellants within 45 days from today failing which, the concerned appellants has to suffer further one month simple imprisonment. On depositing such fine, the same be given to the victim Ram Singh by calling him through summons in the trial Court. ( 14. ) Appeal is allowed in part as indicated above. Order accordingly.RAJESH