ORDER : 1. Heard Mr. Ranjan Kumar Singh, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. 2. Heard Mr. Ravi Prakash, the learned A.P.P. appearing on behalf of the Opposite Party-State. 3. The present criminal revision petition is directed against the judgment dated 28.02.2014 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Sahibganj in Criminal Appeal No. 32 of 2012 whereby and whereunder the learned appellate court affirmed the order passed by the learned Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Sahibganj and dismissed the appeal. The petitioner had preferred the criminal appeal against the order dated 21.03.2012 passed by the learned Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Sahibganj in G.R. No. 246/1997 / E. Case No. 02/2012 (arising out of Ranga P.S. Case No. 24/1996) whereby and whereunder the petitioner was found guilty for the offence under Sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as ‘IPC’) and was ordered to be sent to Observation Home for 03 years. It was further directed that the period spent by the petitioner in Observation Home/Jail shall be set off. Arguments on behalf of the petitioner 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner being a juvenile at the relevant point of time was convicted for the offence under Sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and detention order for the period of 3 years was passed. He submitted that the date of incident is 30.04.1996 and the informant of the case namely, Parwati Devi was not examined. He further submitted that altogether seven witnesses were examined, out of which PW-1 and PW-6 turned hostile and PW-3, PW-4 and PW-5 are the relatives of the deceased and are interested witnesses. The name of the deceased was Sufal Rajak. Learned counsel also submitted that Informant, Doctor as well as the Investigating Officer of the case were not examined. He submitted that PW-4 is not the eye witness to the occurrence. Learned counsel also submitted that as per the Post-Mortem Report, although the injury was grievous in nature, but the same was not sufficient enough to cause death of the deceased. He submits that considering the aforesaid aspects of the matter it cannot be said that the prosecution has proved the case beyond all reasonable doubts, hence the petitioner may be acquitted by giving benefit of doubt. 5. He submits that considering the aforesaid aspects of the matter it cannot be said that the prosecution has proved the case beyond all reasonable doubts, hence the petitioner may be acquitted by giving benefit of doubt. 5. Learned counsel also submitted that present age of the petitioner is around 35 years and as mentioned in Para-11 of the appellate court judgment, the petitioner has already served 2/3rd of the period of the detention order. He further submitted that during the pendency of the revision petition, the petitioner has remained under detention for the period from 13.04.2015 to 18.06.2015, when the petitioner was directed to be enlarged on bail. He submits that considering the age of the petitioner and the period for which the petitioner has already remained in detention in connection with the present case, the punishment of the petitioner may be confined to the period of detention already suffered by the petitioner. Arguments on behalf of the Opposite Party-State 6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Opposite Party-State, on the other hand, while opposing the prayer submitted that there is concurrent finding of facts by both the learned courts below and it has come in evidence that the deceased had expired due to the alleged incident upon suffering grievous injuries on vital part of the body. He further submitted that apart from the other witnesses, there is also one independent witness PW-2 who has fully supported the prosecution case. Learned counsel also submitted that there is no dispute that Informant, Doctor and I.O. of the case were not examined, but the post mortem report has been duly exhibited before during trial which is marked as Exhibit-3. Learned counsel submitted that considering the seriousness of offence, the learned courts below have rightly convicted the petitioner under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and has passed an appropriate order of detention of the petitioner. 7. However, during the course of argument, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Opposite Party-State informed this court that there is no further criminal case against the petitioner after the alleged date of occurrence in the present case and an e-mail in this regard has been forwarded to this court. The said e-mail is directed to be kept on the record of this case. Findings of this Court 8. The said e-mail is directed to be kept on the record of this case. Findings of this Court 8. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going through the impugned judgments and the records of the case, this Court finds that the prosecution case is based on the fardbeyan of the Informant namely, Parwati Devi recorded by S.I. S.K. Shashi of Barharwa P.S. in the intervening night of 30.04.1996 and 01.05.1996 at 01:00 A.M. at Railway Station, Barharwa. She alleged that on 30.04.1996 at about 07:00 P.M. when she was feeding her children inside her house in presence of her husband Nepal Rajak (PW-4), her co-villagers namely, Koka Sah, Manta Sah, Doman Sah (father of petitioner) and one Din Dayal Sah, came at her door quarrelling and started making noise loudly. When the Informant alongwith her husband Nepal Rajak, father-in-law Ram Lal Rajak, Devar Rajendra Rajak and Devar Sufal Rajak (deceased) forbade them from doing so and asked them to go away from there, they came in rage and all of them started giving blows to her husband, father-in-law and devars by means of lathi, fists and slaps causing injuries over their persons including severe injuries over the head and mouth of Sufal Rajak resulting into oozing out of blood from his nose and mouth and he became unconscious. Thereafter, on the advice of the doctor of Barharwa Hospital, Sufal Rajak was taken to Sahibganj Hospital and the rest injured, after treatment, went back to their home. 9. On the basis of the fardbeyan, the case was registered as Ranga P.S. Case No. 24/1996 under Sections 447, 341, 323, 307/34 of Indian Penal Code against the petitioner and three others. In course of treatment, the injured Sufal Rajak died at Bhagalpur Hospital and therefore, Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code was added in the case. After completion of investigation, the Investigating Officer submitted charge-sheet under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code against six accused persons including the petitioner and accordingly, cognizance of the offence under the same sections were taken in the case by the learned A.C.J.M. Rajmahal. 10. The petitioner was declared to be a juvenile vide order dated 09.07.2009 and thereafter, the case record of the petitioner was sent to the Juvenile Justice Board, Sahibganj for inquiry and disposal. 10. The petitioner was declared to be a juvenile vide order dated 09.07.2009 and thereafter, the case record of the petitioner was sent to the Juvenile Justice Board, Sahibganj for inquiry and disposal. On 04.03.2011, the substance of accusation for the offence under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code was read over and explained to the petitioner in Hindi to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 11. This Court further finds that in course of inquiry, the prosecution examined altogether seven witnesses. PW-1 is Doman Rajak who has been declared hostile, PW-2 is Bhanu Rajak, PW-3 is Vijauti Rajak who is wife of the deceased, PW-4 is Nepal Rajak who is the elder brother of the deceased as well as husband of the Informant and he has exhibited his signatures over the xerox copy of inquest report and fard-beyan as Exhibit-1 and Exhibit-2 respectively, PW-5 is Sunil Rajak who is nephew of the deceased and son of PW-4, PW-6 is Ram Kumar Rajak who has been declared hostile and PW-7 is Sajjan Kumar Choudhary who is a formal witness and has proved the Xerox copy of Post-Mortem Report as Exhibit-3. 12. On 06.03.2012, the statements of petitioner under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. was recorded wherein he claimed to be innocent. The defence did not adduce any evidence, oral or documentary. 13. Upon perusal of the judgment passed by the learned Juvenile Justice Board it is apparent that PW-2, PW-3, PW-4 and PW-5 claimed to be eye witness to the occurrence. The F.I.R. was instituted on the basis of the statement of Parwati Devi in the intervening night of 30.04.1996 and 01.05.1996 at 01 A.M. at Railway station Barharwa when on the advice of Doctor of Barharwa hospital, the injured Sufal Rajak was being taken by her to Sahibganj Hospital. PW-4 is the husband of Parwati Devi who had come forward to give his Fardbeyan subsequent to fardbeyan of Parwati Devi and after death of the victim. PW-4 in his deposition narrated the entire incident and has fully supported the prosecution case and had clearly stated in his evidence the name of Koka @ Dhaneshwar Sah, Din Dayal Sah and his brother that they came to the door of PW-4. PW-4 in his deposition narrated the entire incident and has fully supported the prosecution case and had clearly stated in his evidence the name of Koka @ Dhaneshwar Sah, Din Dayal Sah and his brother that they came to the door of PW-4. Thereafter they started pushing the door and when he tried to forbade them, Doman Sah came and gave lathi blow on his hand and in the meantime one Prakash Sah intervened in the matter and tried to pacify the same and while PW-4 was engaged in talking with Prakash Sah, his brother Sufal Rajak came to the house of Doman Sah where the co-accused persons armed with Sabal/Danda including the petitioner armed with danda were already present and all of them assaulted Sufal Rajak mercilessly causing injury over his temple as a result of which he fell down on the surface leading to bleeding from his mouth and his ear and he was brought to the Barharwa hospital from where he was removed to Sahibganj hospital and thereafter he was referred to Bhagalpur hospital for better treatment where he succumbed to injuries during course of treatment on the next day. PW-3 also fully supported the prosecution case who is wife of the victim. She has also clearly stated that the victim was assaulted by means of lathi and Sabal by all the accused including the petitioner who also put pressure over his chest when he fell down. PW-5 is another eye witness to the occurrence who has also fully supported the prosecution case and had stated that the accused including the petitioner assaulted the deceased jointly as a result of which he fell down on the surface and thereafter all of them put pressure by mounting over his chest and blood started oozing out from his ear and mouth who subsequently succumbed to injuries during the course of treatment. PW-2 is an independent witness who came to the place of occurrence and he had seen the victim fallen on the ground which led to oozing out blood from his ears and he has also stated that the present petitioner was in company of the other accused at the time and place of occurrence. 14. PW-2 is an independent witness who came to the place of occurrence and he had seen the victim fallen on the ground which led to oozing out blood from his ears and he has also stated that the present petitioner was in company of the other accused at the time and place of occurrence. 14. Before the learned Juvenile Justice Board, counsel for the defence had specifically argued that the present offence was the first offence of the petitioner juvenile and that the petitioner was not present at the time and place of occurrence. For this the defence relied upon the fardbayan of the informant Parwati Devi who had not taken the name of the petitioner and subsequently the name of the petitioner in the commission of offence was taken by PW-4. It was also argued that the prosecution has not examined any eye witness and there are contradictions in the evidence of witnesses. It was also argued that the Doctor as well as Investigating Officer of the case were not examined. 15. The learned Juvenile Justice Board considered all the arguments advanced on behalf of defence as well as on behalf of the prosecution and recorded that PW-1 and PW-6 were declared hostile, PW-7 was a formal witness who had exhibited the post mortem report as Exhibit-3. PW-4 is not the informant of the case, but this witness had got his fardbeyan recorded after the death of the victim in Bhagalpur hospital and it is a fact that the informant of the case has not been examined. Learned Juvenile Justice Board recorded that PW-2 is the independent witness and PW-3, PW-4 and PW-5 are relatives of the deceased. The Juvenile Justice Board recorded that PW-4 had fully supported the prosecution case and has clearly stated that one Panchu Sah had sabal in his hand and other six accused including the petitioner had lathi in their hands and all of them brutally assaulted the victim and upon being assaulted, he fell down and bleeding started from his mouth and ears and thereafter he was taken to Barharwa hospital and from there he was referred to Sahibganj and thereafter referred to Bhagalpur hospital and during the course of treatment, he died at Bhagalpur hospital. Learned Juvenile Justice Board recorded a finding that the petitioner was also present at the time and place of occurrence and participated in the commission of the offence. The Juvenile Justice Board also recorded that PW-2 had fully supported the prosecution case and he saw the victim had fallen due to assault and there was bleeding from his ears. The learned Juvenile Justice Board also considered that although this witness had not seen the assault but had immediately come to the place of occurrence and had seen the victim in injured condition and at that point of time, the petitioner was also there. PW-3 had also supported the prosecution case and had also stated that after the assault when the victim fell down then the accused persons mounted on the chest of the victim which led to bleeding from mouth and ears. The learned Juvenile Justice Board considered the arguments in connection with non-examination of Parwati Devi and also the fact that the petitioner was not named by Parwati Devi in the F.I.R. Juvenile Justice Board was of the view that the F.I.R. is not the encyclopaedia of the every detail of the occurrence and in view of the consistent evidence of eye witnesses, non examination of informant and not mentioning the name of the petitioner in fardbeyan of the informant was not fatal to the prosecution case. The learned Juvenile Justice Board also considered that although the Doctor has not been examined, but the post mortem report was duly exhibited and eye witnesses have supported the prosecution case and the manner the victim was assaulted in his vital part leading to his death during his treatment in hospital at Bhagalpur. Accordingly, the Juvenile Justice Board was of the view that non- examination of the doctor was also not fatal to the prosecution case. The learned Juvenile Justice Board was of the considered view that the prosecution has been successful in establishing the case against the petitioner under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code beyond the shadow of all reasonable doubt and ultimately held the petitioner guilty of the offence. Learned Juvenile Justice Board also considered the nature of offence while imposing punishment. 16. Learned Juvenile Justice Board also considered the nature of offence while imposing punishment. 16. The learned lower appellate court independently considered all the evidences on record and came to concurrent finding and found the evidence of PW-3, PW-4 and PW-5 consistent and also supported by the evidence of PW-2 who had seen the victim fallen on the ground at the time and place of occurrence with oozing out blood from his ear and had seen the petitioner in the company of other co-accused at the time and place of occurrence. The learned lower appellate court had also considered the arguments of the petitioner regarding non examination of informant, doctor and Investigating Officer of the case and was of the view that the same was not fatal to the prosecution case on account of testimony of PW-2, PW-3, PW-4 and PW-5 who had given vivid details of the occurrence and the discrepancies and inconsistencies appearing in their testimonies are not such a magnitude to cast cloud of suspicion over the authenticity of the prosecution case which was otherwise proved from the testimony of natural and competent witness of the case. The learned lower Appellate Court also found that there was ample evidence at the relevant time of occurrence and that the present petitioner along with co-accused persons had given blow causing severe injuries to the victim which resulted in his death on the next date during the course of his treatment and upheld the conviction of the petitioner under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code. Learned lower Appellate Court also considered the period of detention of the petitioner and refused to take any lenient view considering the offence proved against the petitioner was so grave and condemnable which indicated the violent conduct and activities of the petitioner. 17. Learned lower Appellate Court also considered the period of detention of the petitioner and refused to take any lenient view considering the offence proved against the petitioner was so grave and condemnable which indicated the violent conduct and activities of the petitioner. 17. Upon perusal of the judgments passed by the learned Juvenile Justice Board and the learned lower appellate court, this court finds that there are consistent evidence on record of the eye witnesses of the occurrence particularly PW-3, PW-4 and PW-5 and the post-mortem report was also exhibited; the eye witnesses have given vivid description of the place, time and manner of occurrence and that the victim was assaulted on the vital part of his body by the accused including the petitioner who held danda in his hand along with other co-accused who were armed with Sabal/danda leading to profuse bleeding of the deceased from his nose and ears. The victim was immediately taken to local hospital, thereafter he was taken to Sahibganj Hospital for better treatment and then to Bhagalpur and ultimately he succumbed to his injuries in the hospital at Bhagalpur during course of his treatment. This court is of the considered view that in the instant case the intention of the accused to kill is apparent from the nature of weapon used, part of the body chosen to assault, the manner in which the victim was assaulted and other attending facts and circumstances of the case. There is no doubt that the injury was inflicted on the vital part of the body and victim was taken to the hospital after the occurrence and ultimately shifted to better hospitals and he succumbed to his injuries at Bhagalpur hospital. The evidences on record are clear and consistent which have been scrutinized by Juvenile Justice Board as well as learned lower Appellate Court. This court has no doubt in mind that the offence of the petitioner has been proved beyond all reasonable doubt under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code. The evidences on record are clear and consistent which have been scrutinized by Juvenile Justice Board as well as learned lower Appellate Court. This court has no doubt in mind that the offence of the petitioner has been proved beyond all reasonable doubt under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code. This court is also of the view that non examination of the informant/non mentioning of the name of the petitioner by the informant at the first instance in her fardbeyan/non examination of doctor/non examination of the Investigating Officer of this case are not fatal to the prosecution case in view of the other consistent evidence on record and these arguments have been considered by the learned Juvenile Justice Board as well as learned lower appellate court and have been rejected by well- reasoned judgments. The eye witnesses are fully reliable, credible and trustworthy, non-examination of the Informant, investigating officer and the doctor is not fatal to the prosecution case. 18. This Court finds that the order passed by the learned Juvenile Justice Board, Sahibganj as well as the Judgment passed by the learned appellate court are well reasoned judgments having consistent findings and this Court does not find any illegality or perversity in the impugned judgments and under such circumstances, no interference is called for under revisional jurisdiction. 19. Although the petitioner has served more than 2/3rd of the detention order, but considering the heinous nature of the offence and the manner in which it was committed by the petitioner along with other co-accused, this Court is not inclined to take any lenient or sympathetic view to modify the order of detention of the petitioner. 20. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, the conviction of the petitioner under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code is upheld and the period of his detention is maintained. Accordingly, the present criminal revision petition is hereby dismissed. 21. Interim order, if any, stands vacated. 22. Bail bond furnished by the petitioner is hereby cancelled. 23. Pending interlocutory application, if any, is dismissed as not pressed. 24. Let the Lower Court Records be sent back to the learned Juvenile Justice Board/court concerned. 25. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the learned court below through “Email/FAX.” Criminal Revision dismissed.