LACHHMAN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a revision application by Lachhman, applicant, against his conviction of an offence under Section 326 Penal Code, and the sentence of 6 months' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 100/ -. The applicant had filed an appeal against this order of conviction but it was dismissed under order dated 6-9-1955 of the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Bhopal.

(2.) THE concurrent finding of the two lower Courts is that the appellant had voluntarily caused grievous hurt with a knife. Such a finding cannot be challenged in revision, specially when it is supported by certain circumstances of the case and the defence version given by the applicant cannot be accepted. The applicant had admitted his presence at the time of the assault and the plea taken by him was that the blow was inflicted by Arjun so as to injure him (applicant) but when he bent down the blow struck the complainant, whereby he received the grievous hurt. In case there was any truth in the defence version the complainant would have received only one major injury to the most and this injury would have been accompanied by one incised wound or a minor injury. Lachhman vs. The State (10. 09. 1955 - MPHC) Page 2 of 6 (10. 09. 1955 - MPHC) Page 2 of 6 On the other hand, four injuries were found on the complainant. Apparently, the complainant was injured in other circumstances, that is in the manner' alleged by the prosecution.

(3.) IT was urged on behalf of the applicant that he was not properly examined in accordance with Section 342, Criminal P. C. and consequently prejudice was caused to him and the trial was vitiated. Reliance was placed upon - 'bihari Singh Madho Singh v. State of Bihar'. In this case the Supreme Court held that the trial was vitiated due to the disregard of provisions of Section 342, Criminal P. C as it had resulted in grave prejudice to the accused. In two cases, - 'bejoy Chand Patra v. State of West Bengal'. and -'kedar Nath v. State of West Bengal' the Supreme Court did not set aside the proceedings and did not order a fresh hearing as in its opinion no prejudice was caused to the accused. In , it was also observed that the facts of the case being free from any complications and the points in issue being simple, it was difficult to hold that the examination of the accused in that particular case was not adequate; and that when the accused was not fully examined as required under Section 342, Criminal P. C. it could not be said that it had materially prejudiced him. , can be applied to the present case, the facts of which are also free from complications and the point in issue was very simple,