JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Mr. Naresh Prasad Thakur, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. 2. Heard Mr. Prabhu Dayal Agrawal, learned A.P.P. appearing on behalf of the Opposite Party-State. 3. This criminal revision application has been filed against the judgment dated 04.01.2014 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Dhanbad in Criminal Appeal No. 219 of 2013 whereby the conviction and sentence of the petitioner by the learned trial court for offences under Sections 323, 341 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as ‘IPC’) has been affirmed. The petitioner has also challenged the judgment of conviction and the order of sentence dated 17.05.2013 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Dhanbad in G.R. No. 955 of 2010/T.R. No. 212 of 2013 (arising out of Topchanchi P.S case No. 28/2010) whereby the petitioner and one Ankit Bhagat were held guilty and convicted for offences under Sections 323, 341, 504 of IPC and were sentenced to undergo Simple Imprisonment for six months for offence under Section 323 of IPC, Simple Imprisonment for one month for offence under Section 341 IPC and Simple Imprisonment for one year for offence under Section 504 IPC and it was directed that all the sentences would run concurrently. Arguments on behalf of the petitioner 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the impugned judgments are perverse and are fit to be set-aside. He further submitted that the learned courts below have failed to appreciate that as per the doctor, the injury of the victim (P.W.-5) was simple in nature. He also submitted that P.W. Nos. 1, 3, 4 and 8, who were independent witnesses, have turned hostile. He submitted that these aspects of the matter have not been properly considered by the learned courts below and hence, the impugned judgments call for interference in revisional jurisdiction. The learned counsel submitted that similarly situated co-accused namely, Ankit Bhagat has been acquitted by the learned appellate court, but the conviction of the petitioner has been affirmed. He further submitted that considering the nature of injury of the victim as reported by the doctor, some lenient view may be taken by this Court in revisional jurisdiction. Arguments on behalf of the Opposite Party-State 5. He further submitted that considering the nature of injury of the victim as reported by the doctor, some lenient view may be taken by this Court in revisional jurisdiction. Arguments on behalf of the Opposite Party-State 5. Learned A.P.P. appearing on behalf of the Opposite Party- State opposed the prayer made on behalf of the petitioner and submitted that there are concurrent findings against the petitioner by the learned courts below and no interference is called for in revisional jurisdiction as there is neither any illegality, nor any perversity in the impugned judgments. He also submitted that the case of the co-accused who was acquitted by the learned appellate court stands on different footing and the conviction and sentence of the petitioner were rightly affirmed by the learned appellate court. Findings of this Court 6. The prosecution case is based on a written report of the Informant (P.W.–6) dated 11.03.2010 given to the concerned Officer-in-charge of Topchanchi P.S. on the basis of which the case was registered under Sections 341, 323, 504/34 of IPC. It was alleged by the informant that he alongwith his wife namely, Aloka Devi (P.W.-5) had gone to a shop and while they were returning at about 09:30 AM, his co-villagers namely, Vivek Kumar Bhagat (petitioner) and Ankit Bhagat, both sons of Ganesh Bhagat came there and the petitioner told his wife that she was looking very good and when she objected, the present petitioner assaulted his wife with lathi on her head due to which she sustained injury and fell down. When the informant tried to save his wife, the petitioner and Ankit Bhagat beat him also and on hearing hulla, several persons gathered and rescued them. 7. The case was registered and the wife of the informant was medically examined by the Medical Officer (P.W.–2). After completion of the investigation, Charge Sheet was filed against both the accused persons under Sections 341, 323, 504/34 of IPC, cognizance of the offence was taken on 25.06.2010 under the said sections and thereafter, on 03.09.2010, charges were explained to the accused persons to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 8. In course of trial, the prosecution examined altogether eight witnesses including the informant (P.W.-6), the Doctor (P.W.-2) and the wife of the informant (P.W.-5). The investigating officer of the case was examined as P.W.-7. 8. In course of trial, the prosecution examined altogether eight witnesses including the informant (P.W.-6), the Doctor (P.W.-2) and the wife of the informant (P.W.-5). The investigating officer of the case was examined as P.W.-7. After closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused were examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C wherein they denied their involvement in the commission of crime. It is not in dispute that the prosecution witnesses, P.W.– 1, 3, 4 and 8 did not support the prosecution case and were declared hostile and the entire prosecution case is based on the evidence of the Doctor (P.W.- 2), wife of the informant (P.W.-5), Informant (P.W.-6) and the Investigating Officer of the case (P.W.-7). 9. The doctor who was examined as P.W.-2 exhibited the Injury Report as Exhibit-1 and found the following injuries on the wife of the informant (P.W.–5 ): “1. Lacerated wound- site occipital region, size- 3” x 1” x ¼”, Caused by blunt object, Nature of injury – simple” 10. The wife of the informant, who is the victim, has also fully supported the prosecution case and has stated that she was assaulted with danda on her head and when her husband tried to save her, then both the accused started beating her husband. She has also stated that she alongwith her husband went to government hospital and after the examination, she was referred to Hospital at Dhanbad where she remained for 25 days and from there, she was sent to Ranchi. Her evidence remained consistent even during cross-examination and she has stated that she sustained injury on the back portion of her head. 11. The Informant (P.W.-6) has also fully supported the prosecution case and has given the entire description of the incident including the fact that when his wife objected to the conduct of the accused persons, she was assaulted by the present petitioner by lathi on her head and she fell down and became unconscious. He has proved the written report which was marked as Exhibit -2. He has stated that first he went to the police station and from there, they were sent to Hospital. After first aid, his wife was referred to hospital at Dhanbad where she remained hospitalized for 25 days and on 31.03.2010, she was referred to RIMS, Ranchi where she was treated for 12 to 13 days. He has stated that first he went to the police station and from there, they were sent to Hospital. After first aid, his wife was referred to hospital at Dhanbad where she remained hospitalized for 25 days and on 31.03.2010, she was referred to RIMS, Ranchi where she was treated for 12 to 13 days. He identified the treatment papers which were marked as exhibit - X to X/4 for identification. During cross-examination, he denied the suggestion of the defence that he was a tenant of accused persons and he was forced to vacate the house. 12. P.W.–7 is the Investigating Officer of the case who has also fully supported the prosecution case. He had recorded the supplementary statement of the informant. This witness had prepared the requisition for treatment of the wife of the informant and had recorded her statement. He had also inspected the place of occurrence and described the place of occurrence, collected the injury report of the wife of informant and had arrested the accused persons. The offence being bailable, both the accused persons were released on bail and after completion of investigation, he had submitted the charge-sheet against both the accused persons. This witness proved the formal F.I.R. as Exhibit-3. 13. The learned trial court considered the evidences adduced on behalf of the prosecution in Para-8 of its judgment and recorded that the injuries of the injured Aloka Devi were treated at P.M.C.H., Dhanbad and RIMS, Ranchi, but the documents have not been certified by any Medical Officer and therefore, such documents cannot be considered for perusal. The Exhibit-1 is the Injury Report of the injured which has been prepared by the PW-2 who found the injury on the back portion of the head of the injured and gave his opinion that it was caused by blunt object. The Informant has also stated that the accused Vivek Bhagat (the petitioner herein) had assaulted the injured on the back portion of her head and due to which blood oozed out and she was treated for several days at Topchanchi, Dhanbad and Ranchi. This fact has also been supported by the P.W.-6 who is the husband of the injured and the Informant of the case. But the prosecution has not properly proved the treatment papers of the injuries of the injured and therefore, the statements of the Informant are not getting corroboration. This fact has also been supported by the P.W.-6 who is the husband of the injured and the Informant of the case. But the prosecution has not properly proved the treatment papers of the injuries of the injured and therefore, the statements of the Informant are not getting corroboration. However, P.W.-2 who is the doctor has found injury on the head of Aloka Devi. The Informant is an eye witness to the occurrence. PW-7 who is the Investigating Officer of the case, finding the occurrence true, has submitted charge-sheet. Therefore, after perusal of the evidences of all the witnesses, the learned trial court concluded that the accused persons assaulted the injured Aloka Devi and caused injury to her which has been corroborated by the doctor and the Investigating Officer. The defence has not produced any such facts which may suggest that the evidences produced on behalf of the prosecution are not credible. The prosecution has been able to prove the charges against the accused persons. 14. The learned appellate court also considered the evidences on record and the ingredients of each of the alleged offences and held in Para-16 and 17 as under: - “16. In this case, prime witnesses are P.W.5 Aloka Devi and P.W.6 Sahdeo Pandey. P.W.5 specifically deposed that Vivek Bhagat uttered filthy word and on objection, he assaulted her on head with danta. When her husband came to rescue, then Vivek and Ankit assaulted him. P.W.6 Sahdeo Pandey also deposed that Vivek Bhagat assaulted with lathi on head of his wife. Then she fell down and became unconscious. He has not stated that he was also assaulted by Vivek Bhagat and Ankit Bhagat, rather he stated that after assault by Vivek Bhagat, his wife became unconscious. Therefore, there is consistency in statement of these two witnesses that Vivek Bhagat assaulted Aloka Devi with danta and she sustained head injury. There is contradiction with regard to assault made by Ankit Bhagat because P.W.5 stated that her husband came to rescue, then Vivek and Ankit both assaulted, but P.W.6 did not whisper that when he tried to save his wife then he was also assaulted, rather he stated that he became perplexed and went to PS. Injury report (Ext.1) of Aloka Devi also reveals that she sustained lacerated wound on her head on occipital region. Injury report (Ext.1) of Aloka Devi also reveals that she sustained lacerated wound on her head on occipital region. Injury report does not mention any other injury found on her persons during medical examination. There is no injury report of Sahdeo Pandey. Therefore, injury sustained by Aloka Devi also found corroboration from medical evidence. Evidence of assault by Vivek Bhagat has also been corroborated by Sahdeo Pandey which also found corroboration from medical evidence. Therefore, there is no doubt that Vivek Bhagat is assailant, who assaulted a helpless woman with danta on her head. P.W.5 Aloka Devi, during her cross examination, in para 7, specifically replied that if accused were ready to pay expenditure of treatment, then talk of compromise could proceed further. Though there are other medical report of RIMS, Ranchi, but that could not be proved. From these injury reports, it can be safely inferred that Aloka Devi was referred to RIMS for further treatment. P.W.6 Sahdeo Pandey in para 4 of his deposition deposed that due to paucity of money, he again could not visit RIMS hospital for further treatment. Statement of witnesses reveals that despite sustaining injury, their priority was treatment of injury sustained by Aloka Devi, but due to poverty, they could not bear the burden of expenditure for treatment and even were ready to compromise, if accused persons were ready to pay the expenditure required for treatment of injury.” 17. Learned court below rightly appreciated evidence with regard to involvement of Vivek Bhagat for assault with lathi on head of Aloka Devi. Learned court did not properly appreciated evidence with regard to involvement of Ankit Bhagat as there is contradiction in statement of P.W.5 Aloka Devi and P.W.-6 Sahdeo Pandey. Therefore, reasonable doubt has been created with regard to involvement of Ankit Bhagat. There is cogent, consistent and relevant evidence against Vivek Bhagat for assault with lathi on head of a helpless woman after using filthy words against her.” 15. This Court finds that it has come in evidence that the injured P.W.-5 is the wife of the informant and P.W.-6 is the informant. There is consistent findings that the petitioner uttered filthy word to P.W.-5 and when she objected, she was hit by Vivek Kumar Bhagat (the petitioner herein) on her head by lathi pursuant to which, blood oozed out and sustained injuries. There is consistent findings that the petitioner uttered filthy word to P.W.-5 and when she objected, she was hit by Vivek Kumar Bhagat (the petitioner herein) on her head by lathi pursuant to which, blood oozed out and sustained injuries. Considering the facts and circumstances of this case, this Court is of the considered view that merely because the doctor in his injury report has mentioned that the nature of injury is simple, the same is not sufficient to take any sympathetic view in favour of the petitioner as the injury has been head injury with Lacerated wound at occipital region, size- 3” x 1” x ¼” though Caused by blunt object. The petitioner has not only been convicted under section 323 IPC but also under sections 341 and 504 of IPC and has been, inter alia, sentenced for 1 year under section 504 of IPC , which is the maximum sentence amongst the three sentences . 16. So far as the case of co-accused namely, Ankit Bhagat is concerned, the learned lower appellate court has given him the benefit of doubt by a well-reasoned judgment as quoted above and his case is apparently on a different footing. There is direct and consistent evidence against the present petitioner, who had hit P.W.-5 on her head. The argument of the petitioner that the case of the petitioner and the co-accused Ankit Bhagat is on same footing, does not appear to be correct. There being no illegality or perversity in the impugned judgments so far as the conviction and sentence of the petitioner is concerned, the present criminal revision application is hereby dismissed. 17. Interim order, if any, stands vacated. 18. The bail bond furnished by the petitioner is cancelled. 19. Pending interlocutory application, if any, is dismissed as not pressed. 20. Let the Lower Court Records be immediately sent back to the court concerned. 21. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the learned court below through “FAX”.