BASANTA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) EIGHT accused persons had filed this revision. The application on behalf of the other six persons was dismissed by this Court on 22-111962 but the revision application of Ranjit and Jal Singh applicants alone was admitted.

(2.) TWO points have been urged by the learned counsel for these applicants. Firstly, that P. W. Vikram Singh had stated that Ranjit and Jal Singh applicants had bhalas, the edges of which were round, while P. W. Baru Singh and Chhatter Singh stated that Jal Singh and Basanta had ballams while Ranjit had a bhala. The medical evidence shows that there was no injury from a pointed weapon. According to Dr. Prem Prakash, P. W. Baru Singh had 24 injuries out of which 2 were incised wounds. P. W. Chhatter Singh had seven injuries out of which only one was incised wound. P. W. Vikram Singh had three injuries all of which were caused by some blunt weapon. P. W. Vikram Singh who had received only lathi injuries might not have precisely observed the nature of the weapon in the hands of the applicants. When spears and ballams are being plied and are in motion, it is very difficult to watch and notice whether they had only pointed edges or had sharp edges on both sides of the blade. At any rate the presence of both the accused either with bhala or spear on the scene of occurrence and their participation in the marpit is proved not only by the injured witnesses but also by others. They have been convicted for causing injuries to the complainant party with the aid of Section 148, I. P. C. Therefore, even if the applicants had not actually plied their weapons, they would he vicariously responsible for the injuries caused to the complainant party. The contention advanced on behalf of the defence has thus no force.

(3.) THE other point urged by the learned counsel for the defence was that the Sessions Judge had not considered the defence evidence, even though he had considered the arguments and the contentions advanced on behalf of the defence. It appears that in the appeal before the Sessions Judge, the learned counsel for the applicant had only placed certain points and contentions for the consideration of the Judge, hut had not invited his attention to the defence evidence as such. That is why the Sessions Judge had dealt with the arguments of the defence counsel one by one but had not expressed his opinion about the credibility or otherwise of the defence witnesses.