PADUM SONI Vs. NAKCHHED PRASAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) COMPLAINANT Padum Soni has preferred this criminal revision against the judgment dated 30-12-2005 delivered in Sessions Trial No. 115/2000 by the Additional Sessions Judge, Janjgir, whereby non-applicants No. 1 to 6 were acquitted of the charge under Sections 147, 148, 458, 294, 325 and 323 read with Section 149 of the I.P.C.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated the prosecution story is that Narayan Prasad Soni P.W. 6, Ghanshyam P.W. 3, Komal Soni P.W. 2 and Gopal Prasad Soni P.W. 9 are the real brothers of Padum Soni P.W. 1. At about 3 P.M. on 25-2-1998 one Subhash Soni had threatened to kill Padum Soni P.W. 1 if he did not withdraw from the prosecution launched against non-applicants No. 1 to 6. At about 9 P.M. on 25-2-1998, non-applicants No. 1 to 6 with Subhash Soni formed an unlawful assembly and while being armed with Lathis and in furtherance of the common intention thereof broke open the door of the dwelling house of Padum Soni P.W. 1 and assaulted Narayan Prasad Soni P.W. 6, Ghanshyam P.W. 3, Gopal Prasad Soni P.W. 9 and. Komal Soni P.W. 2. Independent witnesses Netram P.W. 4, Banmali P.W. 5 and Santosh P.W. 7 saw the occurrence. F.I.R. ExP-1 was lodged at P.S. Champa by Padum Soni P.W. 1 at 9:15 P.M. On medical examination, Dr. V.K. Agrawal P.W. 10 found a red contusion with defused swelling 5cmsx2cms on the left side of neck at base of Gopal Prasad Soni P.W. 9, who also complained of pain at the right arm and left thigh though no external injury was present. X-ray report Ex.P-10 revealed that Gopal Prasad Soni P.W. 9 had sustained fracture at left clavicle. Komal Soni P.W. 2 had sustained an abrasion 3cmsx2cms on the right side of forehead and another abrasion 1 cm x 1 cm above it. Ghanshyam P.W. 3 had sustained a contusion 3cmsx2cms on the right elbow joint. Narayan Prasad Soni P.W. 6 had sustained a colourless hematoma 4cmsx2cms on the right side of scalp. X-ray report did not reveal any fracture. Thus, injuries sustained by Narayan Prasad Soni P.W. 6, Komal Soni P.W. 2 and Ghanshyam P.W. 3 were simple in nature. The broken entrance door was seized on 25-2-1998 vide Ex.P-6 and immediately given on Supurdnama to Padum Soni P.W. 1. After completion of investigation, prosecution was launched against non-applicants No. 1 to 6 for the offences mentioned in paragraph 1 supra.

(3.) SHRI F.S. Khare, learned Counsel for the Petitioner argued that the rejection of the testimony of Padum Soni P.W. 1, Komal Soni P.W. 2, Ghanshyam P.W. 3, Gopal Prasad Soni P.W. 9 and Narayan Prasad Soni P.W. 6 by the trial Court on the mere ground that it was not corroborated by independent witnesses Netram P.W. 4, Banmali P.W. 5 and Santosh P.W. 7 was contrary to law. Unless the trial Judge recorded a finding that the testimony of Padum Soni P.W. 1, Komal Soni P.W. 2, Ghanshyam P.W. 3, Gopal Prasad Soni P.W. 9 and Narayan Prasad Soni P.W. 6 stood rebutted in cross-examination or was contradicted in material particulars, it ought not to have disbelieved them on the sole ground that their testimony was not supported by independent witnesses. Mere animosity with non-applicants No. 1 to 6 was also no ground for rejecting the testimony of the above witnesses. Reliance was placed on Anil Rai v. Stata of Bihar AIR 2001 S.C. 3173. The occurrence had taken place inside the house of Padum Soni P.W. 1 about 9 P.M. and, therefore, the mere fact that the above mentioned witnesses were not able to correctly depose as to what weapons were being carried or used by each of non-applicants No. 1 to 6, would not render their testimony unworthy of credit. On these premises, it was urged that it was a fit case in which the matter should be remanded to the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Janjgir for pronouncing judgment after appreciating the testimony of Padum Soni P.W. 1, Komal Soni P.W. 2, Ghanshyam P.W. 3, Gopal Prasad Soni P.W. 9 and Narayan Prasad Soni P.W. 6.