Judgment Aftab Alam, J. 1. These two Criminal Revisions arise from the infamous Bhagalpor Blinding cases where some Police Officers had assumed the combined roles of prosecutor. Judge and executioner. They picked up persons who according to them had criminal records and who in their perception were habitual perpetrators of heinous crimes. Such persons were brought to the police station where they were made blind by pouring some irritant and corrosive substance into their eyes. Such unfortunate incidents took place in a number of police stations in the district of Bhagalpor. These two cases relating to Amarpur Police Station where the informant Jugal Beldar PW 1 was made blind by pouring some irritant and corrosive substance into his eyes some time between the morning of June 20 to the afternoon of June 21, 1980. 2. According to the prosecution case a police party consisting of 7 accused persons including the two petitioners one in each of these two criminal revisions, arrested the informant from his house in village - Meghuabachhini in the forenoon of June 20, 1980 in connection with Amarpur PS. Case No. 15 (6) 80. Following his arrest the informant was kept in wrongful confinement, he was taken from place to place before being brought to the Amarpur Police Station in the night between June 20 and 21, 1980. There in the morning of June 21, 1980 the accused persons, including these two petitioners, in furtherance of their common intention caused grievous hurt in the eyes of the informant by pouring some irritant and corrosive substance as a result of which he lost his vision completely. 3. The investigation of the case was taken over by the C.B.I. which on conclusion of investigation submitted charge-sheet against seven accused persons who were tried for the offences under Sections 120 - Band 326 read with Sec. 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioner in Cr. Rev. No. 851/1990 was also charged under Sec. 220 of the Penal Code. 4. Before the trial Court, there were seven accused persons; Shiv Shankar Prasad Gupta (Petitioner in Criminal Revision No. 851/ 1990) who at the material time was the Officer-incharge of Amarpur Police Station; Nawal Kishore Prasad Verma who was then Assistant Sub-Inspector of police, posted at that police station Dal Chand Ram (Petitioner in Criminal Revision No. 879/1990) who was then Havildar, posted at that police station. The remaining four accused persons, namely, Krishnadeo Jha, Jogesh Yadav, Vyash Narain Singh and Janardan Mandal were constables at the time posted at that police station. 5. The trial Court acquitted the last named four accused who were constables but held that the charges were fully established against the first three accused and sentenced each of them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years under Sec. 120-B. of the Penal Code and one year under Sec. 326/ 34 of the Penal, Code. They were also directed to pay a fine of Rs. 1.000/under each count and in default of payment of the fine to undergo simple imprisonment for sixmonths under each count. Shiv Shankar Prasad Gupta (Petitioner in Cr. Rev. No. 851/1990) was further convicted under Sec. 220 of the Penal Code and was sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000.00 for that offence and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for sixmonths. The sentences were directed to run concurrently. 6. The three convicted accused filed two separate appeals being Criminal Appeal No. 107 of 1987 on behalf of Dal Chand Ram and Cr. Appeal No. 116/1987 (on behalf of Shiv Shankar Prasad Gupta and Nawal Kishore Prasad Verma). The lower appellate Court heard the two appeals analogously and dismissed them by a common judgment confirming the judgment and order passed by the trial Court. 7. Before this Court, the three convicted accused came separately in three different-revisions. Nawal Kishore Prasad Verma filed Cr. Rev. No. 890 of 1990 and Cr. Rev. Nos. 851 and 879 of 1990 were filed on behalf of Shiv Shankar Prasad Gupta and Dal Chand Ram respectively. 8. Cr. Rev. No. 890 bf 1990, filed at the instance of Nawal Kishore Prasad Verma was heard earlier and was dismissed by a learned Judge of this Court by Judgment and order dated 8-9-1997 a copy of which was produced before me by Mr. Rakesh Kumar, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the C.B.I., the prosecuting agency in this case. Now the cases of two other accused are before this Court for consideration. 9. The case of Shiv Shankar Prasad Gupta (Petitioner in Cr. Rev. No. 851 of 1990) is on the same footing if riot on inferior footing than the case of Nawal Kishore prasad Verma whose revision was dismissed by this Court on September 8.1997. 10. Now the cases of two other accused are before this Court for consideration. 9. The case of Shiv Shankar Prasad Gupta (Petitioner in Cr. Rev. No. 851 of 1990) is on the same footing if riot on inferior footing than the case of Nawal Kishore prasad Verma whose revision was dismissed by this Court on September 8.1997. 10. In the light of the evidence adduced on behalf of the prosecution which examined 55 witnesses and produced a large number of documents in support of its case, it is undeniable that on June 20, 1980, the informant, Jugal Beldar was arrested from his village by a police party headed by Shiv Shankar Prasad Gupta, the Officer-in-charge of Amarpur Police Station. The learned Courts below on a careful consideration of the evidence adduced by the prosecution have come to the finding that at the time of his arrest by the police, the informants eyes were quite normal and there were no injuries to his eye. The injuries to his eyes and on the various parts of his body came to light when the Superintendent. Sub-Jail Bank a sent him to Dr. A.C. Jha, PW 36 for examination and treatment. Both the Courts below have, therefore, rightly held that the informant Jugal Beldar was made blind while he was in police custody. Further, on the question of the culpability of Shiv Shankar Prasad Gupta the evidence of the informant (PW 1); appears conclusive. In his deposition before the Court he made specific reference to this petitioner and stated that in the morning of June 21, 1980, the other accused brought him before this petitioner who was sitting on a chair at the police station and he ordered to administer acid into his eyes. Thereupon he was made to lie on the ground and acid was pored into his eyes as a result of which he became unconscious. 11. Mr. Pankaj Kumar Sinha learned Counsel for Shiv Shankar Prasad Gupta submitted that before the F.I.R. was lodged on 6-2-1981, that is to say, several months after the occurrence, the informant had not made any complaint below any authority. 11. Mr. Pankaj Kumar Sinha learned Counsel for Shiv Shankar Prasad Gupta submitted that before the F.I.R. was lodged on 6-2-1981, that is to say, several months after the occurrence, the informant had not made any complaint below any authority. Learned Counsel further submitted that even in the F.I.R. the accused were not named and the F.I.R. does not mention the name of Shiv Shankar Prasad Gupta and it was for the first time that the informant made a reference to him in course of his deposition before the trial Court. 12. All these points were raised, before the Courts below and have been fully considered and answered by them. There is sufficient explanation for the name of Shiv Shankar Prasad Gupta or for that matter of any other accused not being mentioned in the F.I.R. and in the facts and circumstances of this case the omission tow mention the names of the accused in the F.I.R. does not weaken the prosecution case. 13. In view of the overwhelming evidence against Shiv Shankar Prasad Gupta, I am of the considered opinion that the finding recorded by the Courts below that it was on his order that acid was poured into the informants eyes, does not warrant any interference by this Court. In fact, I am of the view that the trial Court has been rather lenient in awarding sentence to him and in my hands he might have perhaps received a more severe sentence. 14. I, therefore, find no merit in the case of Shiv Shankar Prasad Gupta (Cr. Rev. No. 851/1990) and that criminal revision is accordingly dismissed. 15. Coming now to the case of Dal Chand Ram (Petitioner in Cr. Rev. No. 879 of 1990), Mr, Pramod Kumar Singh, learned counsel appearing on his behalf submitted that there was absolutely no evidence to justify his conviction. The submission made by Mr. Singh requires a careful consideration of the deposition of the victim. PW 1 who is the only witness on this point. In his deposition which was taken on 25-5-1983, PW 1 stated that about 3 years ago a police party had gone to his village. He got wind up and ran away to the Bahiar (agricultural fields). He returned back to the village an hour after the police party had gone back. In his deposition which was taken on 25-5-1983, PW 1 stated that about 3 years ago a police party had gone to his village. He got wind up and ran away to the Bahiar (agricultural fields). He returned back to the village an hour after the police party had gone back. The next morning the police again came to the village at 40 clock in the morning and he once again ran away from his house; This time he came to learn that the police party took away from his house all the household articles, including food grains and also smashed his thatched house. He went away to, the neighbouring village. His son came there and informed him that the police party had carried away all the household articles and had kept them in the house of one Fagu Yadav. His son asked him to come back to his house. He came back to his village around 9.45 a.m. and saw that the police party had taken away all the household articles. He further said in Paragraph 3 of his deposition that 10-15 minutes after his arrival three Chowkidars, namely, Saryug Paswan, Bhade Paswan and Horo Paswan, 4-5 Sipahies"(constables) and the Bara Babu of Amarpur Police Station (Officer-in-charge of Amarpur Police Station) and Jamadar Verma came there and surrounded his house. They started assaulting him causing injuries on his head and breaking both his legs as a result of which he was not even able to stand-up. At that time his eyes were perfectly normal. The police party took him from place to place and by the time the Sun was setting brought him to Kenduwar village. Here they sold all his household articles, including food grains, to one Saryug Bhagat and the money paid by him was taken by the policemen and it was kept by the Bara Babu. Later on, they brought him to Amarpur Police Station and put him in the lock-up. He further said in Paragraph 8 of his deposition that, next day 4-5 Sipahies (constables) who were in the police party which had arrested him took him out of the lock-up and brought him before the Bara Babu". The deposition continue in Paragraph 9 as follows: Bara-Babu was sitting on a chair in the verrandah and Jamadar Verma was also standing there. The deposition continue in Paragraph 9 as follows: Bara-Babu was sitting on a chair in the verrandah and Jamadar Verma was also standing there. The police men made him sit on the ground near the Bara Babus chair. The policemen pulled his shoulder from behind and thus made him lie on his back. The policemen kept his hands, chest and head pressed down and kept him lying it that position Darogaji said that acid should be administered to him. Bara-Babu then poured acid into his eyes as a result of which his eyes got burnt. At this stage he showed his completely damaged eyes to the Court. 15. Mr. Singh submitted that Bara-Babu clearly referred to Shiv Shankar Prasad Gupta, who was the Officer-in-charge and Jamadar Gupta to Nawal Kishore Prasad Verma, A.S.I. whose Cr. Rev. No. 890 of 1990 was dismissed earlier by this Court. There was, however, no reference to the petitioner Dal Chand Ram, either in Paragraph 6 of the deposition where the members of the police party who had gone to arrest him, were described or in paragraph Nos. 8 and 9 where the witness stated about the pouring of acid into his eyes, Mr. Singh, accordingly submitted that in so far as petitioner Dal Chand Ram was concerned it was a case of no evidence. 16. Mr. Rakesh Kumar learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the C.B.I. tried to counter the argument by making a reference to the statement of Dal Chand Ram recorded under Sec. 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code in his statement under Sec. 313 Cr. P.C. Dal Chand Ram admitted that he was functioning as Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police at Amarpur Police Station during the period June 20- 22-1980. He also admitted that on 20-61980 he had gone to the village Meghuabachhini as a member of the police party to arrest the informant. Mr. Rakesh Kumar then came back to Paragraph 8 of the deposition of PW 1 where he stated that 4-5 sipahies (constables) who were members of the police party arresting him took him out of the lock up and brought him before the Bara-Babu who was sitting on a chair in the Verandah. Mr. Rakesh Kumar then came back to Paragraph 8 of the deposition of PW 1 where he stated that 4-5 sipahies (constables) who were members of the police party arresting him took him out of the lock up and brought him before the Bara-Babu who was sitting on a chair in the Verandah. Learned counsel submitted that the admission of this petitioner coupled with the statement of PW 1 made it clear that this petitioner was also one of those who took the victim out of the lock up and brought him before the Bara-Babuand later took part in pouring acid into his eyes. 17. It appears to me to be rather stretched construction. Further more it is to be noted that the submission advanced by Mr. Rakesh Kumar would apply equally to the other four accused Sipahies who were acquitted by the trial Court and. therefore. there would be no reason for not meting out the same treatment to petitioner Dal Chand Ram. 18. I have gone through the judgments of the two Courts below very carefully and I find that both the Courts have failed to indicate the basis on which the conviction of Dal Chand Ram could be founded. 19. In the light of the discussion made above. I am of view that it would not be quite safe to maintain the conviction of Dal Chand Ram and in my view he is entitled to the benefit of reasonable doubt. I accordingly extend that benefit to him and held him not guilty of the charges. The judgments and orders passed by the Courts below insofar as the petitioner Dal Chand Ram is concerned. are accordingly set aside and he is acquitted of the charges. He is also discharged of the liability of his bail bond. 20. In the result. Cr. rev. No. 851 of 1990 filed by Shiv Shankar Prasad Gupta stands dismissed while Cr. Rev. No. 879 of 1990 filed on behalf of Dal Chand Ram stands allowed. Revision No. 851 dismissed. Other revision allowed.