Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 224 (PAT)

Gorelal Yadav v. State Of Bihar

2002-02-14

SOMESHWAR NATH PATHAK

body2002
Judgment SOMESHWAR NATH PATHAK, J. 1. This revision is directed against the judgment and order dated 5th September. 2000 passed by 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Katihar. in Cr. Appeal No. 40 of 1993 confirming the judgment of the trial Court dated 27th April, 1993, passed by the Judicial Magistrate. 1st Class, Katihar. in G.R. No. 2200 of 1998/Tr. No. 85 of 1993. The revisionist was convicted for the offences under Sections 326 and 447. IPC and was sentenced to undergo R.l. for three years and one month respectively. 2. It has been submitted that on the allegations of a row over grazing of the field of the informant by the he-calf of accused Gorelal Yadav, the petitioner gave a Sufali-blow into the abdomen of injured Subodh Yadav, for which this case was instituted. Subsequently, on trial, the revisionist was convicted and sentenced, as stated above. 3. It has been submitted that earlier there was an appeal before the same Court in which the appellate Court reduced the sentence to one year under Section 326. IPC and maintained the sentence under Section 447, IPC. Then there was a revision (Cr Revn. No. 129/2000) which was allowed by order dated 28th April 2000 and the appeal was remanded to the lower Court for passing a fresh judgment because the appellant was not heard. Subsequently, the impugned judgment of the appellate Court has been passed by which the earlier sentence awarded by the trial Court has been maintained. 4. It has been further submitted that the I.O. has not been examined in this case. So the P.O. could not be fixed properly and certain vital contradictions regarding the P.O. and the examination of witnesses as also the seizure could not be elicited. Moreover, the informant himself said in his evidence as (P.W. 7) that he was examined by the Sub-Inspector on 20th November, 1984, in the Hospital and it was reduced in the Station Diary, but this Station Diary was not produced. Moreover, some of the witnesses said that they were examined by the Police Officer on the next date of the occurrence, whereas the case was instituted on written report of the informant on 24th November, 1984. One of the seizure witnesses who is son-in-law of the informant (PW 5), said that his signature was obtained on plain piece of paper. Moreover, some of the witnesses said that they were examined by the Police Officer on the next date of the occurrence, whereas the case was instituted on written report of the informant on 24th November, 1984. One of the seizure witnesses who is son-in-law of the informant (PW 5), said that his signature was obtained on plain piece of paper. The seized article "Sufali" and blood-stained clothes were not produced in Court during trial. The Bedd-head Ticket from the Hospital was also not produced, regarding the treatment meted out to the injured. Moreover, there was no explanation for the delay in lodging the case. So far the injuries are concerned, the Doctor said that depth of the same could not be ascertained. 5. On these grounds, it has been submitted that the judgment of the trial Court suffered from illegality and. hence, it may be set aside. However, in this connection. I am of the opinion that the findings arrived at by the trial Court do not constitute illegality. Depth of injuries admittedly, may vary because the injured was subjected to operation and when Sufali is thrushed into the abdomen of the injured and it is taken out either by the Doctor or by the relation of the injured, depth of the injury will also vary and either it will go deeper or it will be expanding in different directions of victims body. As far as the lady is concerned, it would appear that some mischief was committed by the Police Officer and there was some delay in lodging the case. It was, perhaps, under these circumstances that the informant had to give a written report to the Police on 24th November, 1984. Non-production of seized article in Court is also on account of laches on the part of prosecution machinery, including the Police. The seizure-list was brought on the record and the statements of seizure witnesses also attribute to irregularities committed by the seizing Police Officer, but none of these irregularities or discrepancies will belie the story of assault, as alleged by the prosecution. The suggestion given to the PWs. is also shifting one which point to the guilt of the accused themselves, because if the suggestion given to the PWs. carried any iota of truth, it must be specific and consistent. No defence evidence was also adduced. The suggestion given to the PWs. is also shifting one which point to the guilt of the accused themselves, because if the suggestion given to the PWs. carried any iota of truth, it must be specific and consistent. No defence evidence was also adduced. So there was no circumstance on the record to suggest any cause of false implication, I am, therefore, of the opinion that the finding of fact recorded by the two Courts below do not call for any interference by this Court. 6. So far the sentence is concerned, it has been submitted that the earlier appellate Court had reduced the sentence to one year, but the appellate Court, on remand, maintained the sentence recorded by the trial Court. In this connection, I am of the opinion that when this Court remanded the matter to the Court below, it was an absolute remand and the hands of the appellate Court who passed the impugned order was not fettered nor he could be influenced by the previous judgment. So this cannot be a ground for reducing the sentence by the Court below. Three years imprisonment is not so stringent as to call for any interference by this Court. 7. In the result, this revision is dismissed.