Panna Lal Keshri and Another vs State of Bihar and Another

B.N.P. Singh, J.—This criminal revision application is against the concurrent finding of both the Courts below when finding of guilt recorded by the Court below against petitioners was confirmed by the appellate Court with admonition to them as enjoined u/s 3 of the Probation of Offenders Act. Since learned Counsel for the petitioners despite adjournment on the last day has not appeared even today to argue the case, after perusal of the record and hearing Counsels for Opp-Parties finding is recorded as follows:

The factual matrix as appearing from the first information report and also the narrations made by the witnesses at trial are that on 12.6.1997 since petitioner No. 1 was constructing wall in the passage which could have blocked the ingress to the house of Kalo Devi, she registered a protest, pursuant to which there had been abuses between Kalo Devi, P.W. 4 and petitioner No. 2, both of whom pulled hairs of each other. When Tarn San came and resisted action of the petitioners, the prosecution alleges that petitioner No. 1 dealt a lathi blow on his head and thereafter he was carried to hospital and thought the police was informed, barring sanha entry recorded in the police station for initiation a proceeding u/s 107 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, there was no breakthrough in the matter. The said Tarni Sah eventually filed a petition of complaint before the Court which was transmitted to the Police and on conclusion of investigation the police laid charge-sheet in the Court. In the eventual trial that commenced, the State examined altogether seven witnesses including the injured, his son, other family members, the doctor and other witnesses.

The defence of the Petitioners at trial was that since the complaint case bearing No. 320C/97 had been instituted by the petitioner with accusation of assaulting him and his wife by Tarni Sah and others, preceding institution of the instant case, the petitioners were sought to be falsely roped in the case with false accusations. The defence too examined two witnesses and brought on the record some documents including two reports of the Advocate Commissioner. The trial Court, however, on the basis of the evidences placed on the record while negativing contentions raised on behalf of the petitioners, through recorded finding of guilt under Sections 323 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code, directed release of the petitioners on admonition as enjoined u/s 3 of the Probation of Offenders Act. When the matter was carried in appeal in Cr. Appeal No. 78 of 2000 before Sri Ishwar Prasad, Addl. Sessions Judge VI, Munger, the finding recorded by the trial Court was confirmed which is impugned in revision.

Barring doctor, among the witnesses examined on behalf of the State, right from P.Ws. 1 to 6 claimed to be ocular witnesses to the incident. Tarni Sah P. W. 6 on whose behest the prosecution was launched against the petitioners reiterated his earlier version at trial about petitioner No. 1 dealing hard blunt substance on his head, after he resisted, petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 from abusing Kalo Devi, who had registered a protest for erection of brick wall in the passage. Narrations almost in similar vein has been made by Subodh Ram P.W. 1, Rajendra Sao P.W. 2, Babloo Prasad Sah P.W. 3, Kalo Devi P.W. 4 and Munna Sao P.W. 5 also about petitioner No. 1 assaulting Tarni Sah with hard and blunt substance on his head when he registered protest for erection of wall in the passage, by the petitioners. The doctor who examined Tarni Prasad Sah happens to be P.W. 7 and he stated to have noticed lacerated wound on right side of head 3" x 1/4" in the skin. Injury was simple in nature caused by hard and blunt substance and one may find that for ocular testimony of the witnesses the doctor had noticed corresponding injury on the person of the injured.

From revision application it would seem that the finding recorded by both the Courts below was sought to be challenged on premises that the credibility of the finding recorded by the doctor was open to question as no time of examination of the injury was recorded in the injury report. Other criticism which was sought to be made against the finding of the Court was that the story of construction of wall which was the genesis of the incident had not been established by cogent evidence and also that though evidence of unimpeachable character had been brought on the record by petitioners with the aid of testimony of witnesses and documents those were not given credence by the Court below.

True it is that the doctor who examined the injured has not noticed time of examination in the injury report but for that, the positive finding recorded by the doctor cannot be thrown over boat. As for the genesis of the incident, all the ocular witnesses examined by the State had been narrating before the Court below in most coherent terms about Tarni Sah having been assaulted by petitioner No. 1 when he registered protest over construction of wall in the passage. True it is that some of the witnesses were close relation of Tarni Sah but for that reason alone, their credibility could not be questioned. Though Investigating Officer was not examined, but for that reason also, unless it is shown that the defence was seriously prejudiced, no mileage will be given to the defence. Evidence placed on the records admittedly show that there was litigation with regard to the said passage and some criminal cases were pending between the parties which were eventually compromised. Though the defence had brought on the record, complaint petition bearing No. 320C/97 registered under Sections 323 354 379 and other allied sections of the Indian Penal Code, it is not in dispute that the doctor was not examined at trial to say about injury suffered by the victim. The Pleader Commissioner author of report, shown to have been appointed by Court of Munsif was also examined who brought on record the relevant document, but that cannot be construed to be a conclusive, finding over the issues which are yet pending adjudication before the Court.

Having carefully analaysed evidences placed on the record and also the grounds taken in the revision application by the petitioners, I am afraid that the finding recorded by the Court below can be disturbed. The Criminal Revision being meritless is accordingly dismissed.