13. Learned counsel for the appellant has reiterated that it would be strange that the assault did not taken place at the stage of cutting bamboo rather after cutting bamboo, the appellant party came to the house of the informant and then altercation taken place. This court also finds that if an altercation had to occur, it would have taken place at the time of cutting of bamboo and the matter would have been settled there. Learned Court below has also taken note of this fact and at para 16 of the impugned judgment, learned trial court noted that there is much inconsistency in the statement of the P.W.’s regarding manner of assault. 14. Other aspect that comes to the mind of this court is nature of injury. The injuries inflicted on the appellant side as compared to the injury sustained by informant side, the appellant side has been more injured and in fact there is also fracture or a grievous injury also sustained by them. From record I, find three persons from the appellant’s side had sustained injuries which is reflected in the injury report Ext. A to A/c and Nirmal Pandit (Father of the appellant) had sustained grievous injury whereas, injury sustained from the informant side by Bsudeo Pandit P.W.1 is simple in nature. Moreover, Basudeo Pandit had stated in his examination-in-chief that the appellant had assaulted him on his head by tangi . But, on perusal of the injury report of Basudeo Pandit, I find that there is no such sharp cut injury on the head and doctor P.W.5 has also not opined that injuries were caused by sharp cutting weapon rather doctor has opined that injuries were caused by hard and blunt substance. Hence,, the ocular evidence of the injured P.W.1 himself does not correspond to his medical injury report Ext. 2 and hence makes the entire prosecution case doubtful.
