Testimony of injured witnesses and medical evidence of fractures sustain convictions for rioting and grievous hurt.

On May 11, 2006, at approximately 8:00 AM, an altercation between Mojbur Bhangi and Mojbur Khan escalated into an attack where eight accused persons, armed with lathis, rods, and tangis, assaulted members of the complainant's family

The victims sustained various physical injuries, including fractures

The Trial Court (confirmed by the Appellate Court) convicted Petitioners 1–5 under Sections 148 and 323 of the IPC, and Petitioners 6–8 under Sections 148 and 325 of the IPC, imposing fines and simple imprisonment

The petitioners filed this revisional application challenging the conviction on grounds of delayed FIR, interested witnesses, and non-seizure of weapons

1. Whether the testimonies of "interested witnesses" (relatives) and the existence of a counter-case are sufficient to discredit the prosecution's case?

2. Whether the absence of seized weapons and medical omissions regarding the names of assailants are fatal to a conviction under Sections 148, 323, and 325 of the IPC?

The court applied Section 148 (Rioting, armed with deadly weapon), Section 323 (Punishment for voluntarily causing hurt), and Section 325 (Punishment for voluntarily causing grievous hurt) of the Indian Penal Code

It relied on the principle that the testimony of an "injured witness" carries special evidentiary value because they bear the "imprint of the occurrence"

The court applied the doctrine that "evidence is weighed and not counted," noting that the absence of independent witnesses or investigative lapses (like non-seizure of weapons) does not necessarily invalidate a conviction if ocular evidence is credible

The High Court observed that the ocular accounts of the injured witnesses (PW-5, PW-6, PW-10) were consistent regarding the sequence of the assault and the identity of the assailants

The court dismissed the defense's reliance on the relationship of witnesses to the victims, stating that in village disputes, independent witnesses are often reluctant to testify, and the "injured witness" status provides inherent reliability

Regarding medical evidence, the court held that the lack of assailant names in injury reports is not fatal as medical documents are for treatment, not adjudication

Medical testimony from PW-14 confirmed fractures (grievous hurt under Sec 320 IPC), corroborating the ocular version of an assault with blunt objects

The court found that the accused's return with weapons after an initial quarrel proved a "common object," thereby satisfying the requirements of Section 148

The Court held that the prosecution proved the charges under Sections 148, 323, and 325 IPC beyond reasonable doubt.

Petitioner No. 1's case was declared infructuous due to his death. However, the Court modified the sentence: the substantive term of imprisonment was reduced to the period already undergone, while the fine for each surviving petitioner was increased to Rs. 20,000