Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 938 (PAT)

Suraj Sahni v. State Of Bihar

2002-08-28

SOMESHWAR NATH PATHAK

body2002
Judgment SOMESHWAR NATH PATHAK, J. 1. This revision is directed against the judgment dated 3.5.2001, passed by the 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Begusarai in Cr. Appeal No. 40/93 confirming the judgment of the trial Court dated 9.2.1993, passed by the Judicial Magistrate, 2nd Class in Complaint Case No. 736(C) of 1990 (Trial No. 246 of 1993). The revisionists were convicted for the offence under Sections 147 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months and six months respectively. The appellate Court set aside the order of sentence maintaining the order of conviction and directed the revisionists to be released on a bond of Rs. 2,000/- for maintaining peace and to be of good behaviour for one year. 2. Counsel for the revisionists submitted that the complainant in his complaint petition alleged that Plot No. 798. was the P.O. land, whereas in is evidence in Court examined as PW 3 he alleged the P.O. as Plot No. 762 ~ Moreover, the trial Court and the appellate Court both acquitted the revisionists for the offence under Sections 379 and 427, IPC because the complainant failed to substantiate that he was in possession over the P.O. field. However, the revisionists were convicted under Sections 147 and 323, IPC. In this connection, it was submitted that there are certain contradictions in the evidence of PW 3. Moreover, the complainant himself has said that he was subjected to assault and he became semi-unconscious as he received 15-20 fists and slaps, but neither any medical evidence was produced nor the complainant could demonstrate any sign of injury on his body. So the occurrence of assault was to be disbelieved and the Court below wrongly convicted them in this occurrence. 3. So far the contradictions here and there in the evidence of PW 5, including the complainant, no statement of any witness can be literally interpreted to come to a finding that on account of such contradiction, a particular offence is not established, so far the discrepancy regarding the P.O. field is concerned, it may be a clerical error either by slip of tongue or by slip of pen by the Court while recording the deposition. Moreover, it is apparent from the complainants evidence that both the accused and the complainant was laying claim over the P.O. field whatever it may be. Moreover, it is apparent from the complainants evidence that both the accused and the complainant was laying claim over the P.O. field whatever it may be. It has come in the evidence of one of the witnesses that after the occurrence, the P.O. field remained fallow and uncultivated. This circumstance also indicates that both the parties have dispute over the land and on account of this dispute, this land remained uncultivated. It has also come in the evidence of the complainant that there was earlier a criminal case against the same set of accused persons filed by his uncle. This will also give circumstances that the complainants family was pursuing his claim over the P.O. field. It is further apparent that the complainant was claiming the disputed field- So in the face of the protest by the accused, they were from to drive him away or to force him to go out of the field, but they were certainly not justified in assaulting him. There is no evidence nor there is any suggestion that the complainant came to the P.O. field associated by other persons so that he could not be driven out from the P.O. field without any assault, so the occurrence of assault cannot be disbelieved. Moreover on the basis of some contradictions here and there in the evidence of its literal interpretation, this Court cannot the interfere in revision. In revision, the Court will examine the findings of the Court below whether they suffered from any illegal approach adopted by the Court below in analysing the evidence or whether the Court committed any error of record. There is not much scope for scrutinising the evidence in depth in a revision. I am of the opinion that the order of conviction recorded by the two courts below for the offence under Sections 147 and 323, IPC do not call for any interference by this Court. The revisionists were acquitted for the offence under Section 379, IPC. They were further directed to furnish bond by the appellate Court. In the result, I am of the opinion that this is not a good case for interferring with the judgment of the appellate Court. In the result this revision is dismissed.