PRAFULLA CH. KANUNGO Vs. DHULIA BEHERA AND ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a revision against an order of acquittal in a G.R. Case. This revision has been filed by the informant on whose information police took up investigation and ultimately filed charge -sheet.

(2.) THE prosecution case, in short, is that on 4 -7 -1965 at bout 6 -30 P.M., while Petitioner was washing himself near a tubewell close to his Khamar house at Gadkarmala, Dhulia Behera (O.P. No. 1) gave him a lathi blow from behind and when he began to run to the back of his house, Balia Behera (O.O. No. 2) assaulted him. Thereafter, both the opposite parties committed assault on him, as a result of which, he fell down. Hearing his alarm, his two halias (p.w. 3 and 4) came rushing there and p.ws. 1 and 5 who were passing by that way also saw the occurrence. Subsequently, information was given to his uncle Raj kishore, who took him to the Gope hospital where doctor opined suspected fracture of the left hand. While being taken to the headquarters hospital to Puri, Petitioner lodged the F.I.R. On police requisition, his injuries were examined on 5 -7 -1965 at 9 -00 A.M., police took up investigation and ultimately submitted charge -sheet under Sections 325/3 -1 : and 341/34, Indian Penal Code Accused, in defence, denied to have committed assault and alleged that Antaryami Das against whom their father had filed a complaint has falsely implicated them in the present case. They also allege that the witnesses are inimical to them.

(3.) LEARNED Counsel for Petitioner assails the order of acquittal on the ground that the basic approach to the evidence made by the learned Magistrate is not correct; that material aspects in the evidence have been ignored and reliance has been placed on insignificant and minor discrepancies and circumstances in arriving at his conclusions. He relies on the decision reported in Sarju Singh v. Mahendra Pratap Singh : A.I.R. 1964 Pat. 561, and contends that even in a revision filed by a private party against an order of acquittal, it is competent for the High Court to interfere if it considers that it is necessary to do so in the interests of public justice and in order to prevent a gross miscarriage of justice. It is pointed out that in the Patna case the High Court re -assessed the evidence in revision and set aside the order of acquittal.