Aniruddha Singh ORDER
Aniruddha Singh, J.
1. Heard Sri Arvind Kumar Singh, learned counsel for revisionist No. 1 Prempal and revisionist no. 2 Rampal as well as Sri Mayank Mishra, learned Brief Holder for the State and perused the record.
2. This criminal revision has been preferred under section 397/401 Cr.P.C. challenging judgment and order dated 6.6.1988 passed by 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Ghaziabad dismissing Criminal Appeal No. 127/87 which was filed against judgment and order dated 2.9.1987 passed by 1st Munsif Magistrate, Ghaziabad convicting Prempal, Rampal, Bashir and Hukam Singh and sentencing to one month's simple imprisonment with fine of Rs. 200/- each under section 323 read with section 34 IPC and three months' simple imprisonment with fine of Rs. 300/- each under section 324 read with section 34 IPC; both the sentences to run concurrently and in default in deposition of fine, one month's simple imprisonment each under both sections.
3. Revision was preferred by Prempal. Rampal Bashir and Hukam Singh. During pendency of revision, revisionist no. 3 Bashir and revisionist no. 4 Hukam Singh died and revision was dismissed as abated vide order dated 20.7.2018.
4. According to prosecution case, FIR was lodged on 19.2.1985 under Sections 323, 324 IPC against four persons namely, Prempal, Rampal, Bashir and Hukam Singh alleging that on 18.2.1985 they alongwith two other persons assaulted Shankar Singh and Jagdish by lathi-danda and 'farsa' and caused them injuries. After investigation, charge sheet was submitted against Prempal, Rampal, Bashir and Hukam Singh. Cognizance was taken by the Court concerned. Charges were framed under Sections 323 read with 34 IPC, 324 read with section 34 IPC and 325 read with section 34 IPC. Accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
5. Prosecution examined nine witnesses in their support. They are P.W. 1 Shankar Singh, P.W. 2 Jagdish, P.W. 3 Dharmpal, P.W. 4 Dr. K.D. Gupta, P.W. 5 Rajpal, P.W. 6 Rajbahadur Singh, P.W. 7 Dr. Gyanendra, P.W. 8 Dr. R.L. Saraswat, P.W. 9 Head Constable Sahadev Sharma.
6. Statements of accused were recorded under section 313 Cr.P.C. They denied offence and contended that they have been falsely implicated on account of enmity but did not adduce any oral evidence. They filed some documents showing that there was litigation going on between the parties and they were on inimical terms.
7. After hearing learned counsel for the accused as well as counsel for the State, impugned judgment dated 2.9.1987 was passed convicting Prempal, Rampal, Bashir and Hukam Singh under sections 323 read with section 34 and 324 read with section 34 IPC and sentencing as aforesaid. They were acquitted under Section 325 read with section 34 IPC. Against judgment and order dated 2.9.1987, Criminal Appeal No. 127 of 1987 was filed which was dismissed by the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Ghaziabad vide judgment and order dated 6.6.1988. Hence this revision.
8. Learned counsel for the revisionists submitted that impugned judgment of both Courts are against law and facts. According to prosecution case, first of all three injuries were found on the body of Shankar Singh. Later on, total six injuries were found and it was subsequently, admitted by the doctor that injuries no. 4, 5 and 6 were fabricated and were not caused by the revisionists. FIR was lodged second day without explaining delay and revisionists are not previous convict. Hence, revisionists are entitled to be acquitted.
9. Learned AGA submitted that on the body of Shankar Singh, three injuries were found which were received by him on the date, time and place and were caused by revisionists. Injured Jagdish received two injuries, out of which one is incised wound and second is complaint of pain and these were caused by revisionists. The delay is properly explained and only on the ground of delay revisionists cannot be acquitted. Injuries received on the body, cannot be said to be fabricated showing the nature of injuries. Two Courts have given concurrent findings on the point of conviction. Hence, no interference is called for in revision and revision is liable to be dismissed.
10. From perusal of record, it transpires that only one injury on the body of Jagdish was found which is incised wound and specific role of causing injury with 'farsa' to Jagdish was assigned to Prempal in the statement of witnesses. Hence offence under section 324 IPC is proved against Prempal. Another injury sustained by injured Jagdish is caused by hard & blunt object and is simple in nature. Learned Trial Court as well Appellate Court have convicted revisionists under section 323 read with section 34 IPC and 324 read with section 34 IPC.
11. From perusal of record, it also transpires that all other documents have been proved by the prosecution witnesses and there is no dispute on this issue and no material contradiction was found in cross-examination by the revisionists.
12. It is material to mention here the injuries found on the body of injured persons. Injuries found on the body of injured Shankar Singh are as follows:-
1. Lacerated wound middle of the scalp towards left side size 4 cm x 0.5 cm scull deep bleeding present.
2. Lacerated wound in the middle of the scalp back side size 5 cm x 0.5 cm x 0.3 cm. Bleeding present.
3. Lacerated wound 1 cm x 0.3 cm. X scull deep on left forearm on outer side below elbow joint.
13. Injured Jagdish received following injuries:-
1. Incised wound 9 cm x 0.5 x scull deep on the middle of the scull bleeding present.
2. Pain in right side of shoulder.
14. From perusal of injures, it is very clear that these injuries were caused at the date and time mentioned in the FIR. Two witnesses are injured witnesses i.e. P.W. 1 Shankar Singh and P.W. 2 Jagdish. The statements of all injured witnesses are very important.
15. In the case of Jarnail Singh vs. State of Punjab, MANU/SC/1584/2009 : 2009(6) Supreme, 526 it was held that deposition of an injured witness should be relied upon unless there are strong grounds for rejection of his evidence on the basis of major contradictions and discrepancies for the reason that his presence on the scene stands established in the case and it is proved that he suffered the injuries during the said incident.
16. Further, in the case of Maqsoodan vs. State of U.P., MANU/SC/0083/1982 : (1983) 1 SCC 218 (three Judges Bench) it was held that presence of the injured witnesses at the time and place of the occurrence cannot be doubted as they had received injuries during the course of the incident and they should normally be not disbelieved.
17. Hence evidence of P.W.-1 Shankar Singh and P.W.-2 Jagdish have value and this Court finds no material contradictions and discrepancies on which ground statement of P.W.-1 and P.W. 2 may be disbelieved.
18. Both injured witnesses categorically stated that Prempal with 'farsa'(sharp-edged weapon) and Rampal, Bashir and Hukam Singh with sticks(lathi-danda-hard & blunt object) assaulted injured persons at the date, time and place mentioned in the FIR. The evidence of injured persons have been corroborated by the statement of doctor, entry in G.D., statement of P.W. 3 Dharm Pal Singh and injury reports. Hence, case against revisionists Prempal and Rampal is proved without reasonable doubt under section 323 read with 34 IPC and section 324 read with 34 IPC.
19. Word 'proved' is defined under Section 3 of Evidence Act as under:-
"Proved".-A fact is said to be proved when, after considering the matters before it, the Court either believes it to exist, or considers its existence so probable that a prudent man ought, under the circumstances of the particular case, to act upon the supposition that it exists."
20. The question is whether a prudent man under these circumstances can believe that the facts deposed by the witnesses do exist beyond reasonable doubt.
21. Learned counsel on behalf of revisionists submitted that there was no motive to cause injury to Shankar Singh and Jagdish. Hence, revisionists are liable to be acquitted. This submission has no force. It was held in the State of U.P. vs. Nawab Singh, MANU/SC/0080/2004 : 2005 SCC (Criminal) 33 that motive is not a sine qua non for the commission of a crime. Moreover, it takes a back seat in a case of direct ocular account of the commission of the offence by a particular person. In a case of direct evidence the element of motive does not play such an important role as to cast any doubt on the credibility of prosecution witnesses even if there be any doubt raised in this regard. If the eye witnesses are trustworthy, the motive attributed for the commission of crime may not be of much relevance. Failure to prove motive or absence of evidence on the point of motive would not be fatal to prosecution case when other reliable evidence available on record unerringly establishes the guilt of the accused.
22. In the case of Lallu Manjhi & Another vs. State of Jharkhand reported in MANU/SC/0004/2003 : AIR 2003 SC 854, the Supreme Court has held as below:-
"The Law of Evidence does not require any particular number of witnesses to be examined in proof of a given fact. However, faced with the testimony of a single witness, the Court may classify the oral testimony into three categories, namely (i) wholly reliable, (ii) wholly unreliable, and (iii) neither wholly reliable nor wholly unreliable. In the first two categories there may be no difficulty in accepting or discarding the testimony of the single witness. The difficulty arises in the third category of cases. The court has to be circumspect and has to look for corroboration in material particulars by reliable testimony, direct or circumstantial, before acting upon testimony of a single witness."
23. After analyzing judgment of Supreme Court in the case of Lallu Manjhi & Another vs. State of Jharkhand(supra) this Court finds that the testimony of witnesses P.W. 1 Shankar Singh and P.W.-2 Jagdish are "wholly reliable" and are also corroborated by medical evidence as well as other documentary evidence produced by the prosecution.
24. On the point of conviction, this Court finds no force in the arguments raised by learned counsel for the revisionists and revision is liable to be dismissed.
25. On the point of sentence, learned counsel for the revisionists submitted that incident is of year 1985, revisionists have suffered 33 years facing trial before Trial Court and waiting for justice before Appellate Court and revisional Court. Revisionists were in jail from 6.6.1988 to 18.6.1988(12 days) at the time of dismissal of appeal, they belong to weaker section of rural area, their financial condition is poor, they are 49-50 years old, hence on the point of sentence lenient view may be taken and they may be sentenced to imprisonment already undergone with fine under sections 323 read with 34 and 324 read with 34 IPC.
26. Learned counsel for the revisionists placed reliance upon judgment of this High Court Hukum Singh vs State of Uttar Pradesh, MANU/UP/1413/2012 : LAWS(ALL) 2012 (2) 178 wherein under section 436/34 IPC, the accused were sentenced to imprisonment already undergone with fine of Rs. 25,000/- each and Rs. 20,000/- was directed to be paid to the complainant as compensation.
27. From perusal of record, it transpires that Prempal had used 'farsa'-a sharp-edged weapon to assault Jagdish and he received one injury(incised wound) on his scull. He was convicted under section 323/34 and 324/34 IPC and sentenced to one month's simple imprisonment with fine of Rs. 200/- under section 323/34 IPC and three months' simple imprisonment with fine of Rs. 300/- under section 324/34 IPC. It transpires that learned lower Court has taken very lenient view against revisionist No. 1 Prempal. Hence, this Court finds no ground to show any leniency against revisionist No. 1 Prempal. The revision in respect of revisionist No. 1 Prempal is liable to be dismissed.
28. So far as revisionist no. 1 Rampal is concerned, he has already served out sentence of twelve days in jail. Only one incised wound is received by Jagdish and that was caused by Prempal with 'farsa' and no assault with sharp-edged weapon was assigned to Rampal. In the opinion of Court, justice would be done if lenient view is taken against Rampal and he is convicted and sentenced to imprisonment already undergone within fine under section 323 IPC and 324/34 IPC.
29. In the above backdrop, the revision is dismissed in respect of revisionist no. 1 Prempal and revision in respect of revisionist No. 2 Rampal is partly allowed. Revisionist No. 2 Rampal is convicted under Sections 323/34 and 324/34 IPC and sentenced to imprisonment already undergone with fine of Rs. 1000/- under section 323/34 IPC and imprisonment already undergone with fine of Rs. 10,000/- under section 324/34 IPC. Fine shall be deposited within two months from the date of judgment. On deposit of fine, Rs. 5000/- each be paid to injured Shankar Singh and Jagdish, if they are alive. The judgment and order dated 6.6.1988 with regard to sentence in respect of revisionist no. 2 Rampal is hereby modified.
30. Revisionist No. 1 Prempal is in jail. He shall serve out sentence accordingly.
31. Copy of this judgment alongwith original record of Court below be transmitted to the Court concerned for necessary compliance. Compliance report be submitted to this Court within three months. Office is directed to keep the compliance report on record.
© Manupatra Information Solutions Pvt. Ltd.