NIWAS SHARMA Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner on being tried by Shri Jagdish Prasad Mishra. Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class. Aurangabad, suffered conviction under Sections 341 and 379 of the Indian Penal Code, IPC and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 15 days and six months respectively. He also suffered conviction under Section 323. IPC and was sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/-and in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months. The fine so realised was to be paid to Smt. Chandramani Devi, who happened to be the injured. The findings recorded by the trial Court was assailed by the aggrieved petitioner in Cr. Appeal No. 21 of 1995/25 of the 1996 before the 5th Additional Sessions Judge, Aurangabad. and on appreciation of evidence placed on record, the lower appellate Court, while acquitted the petitioner of the charge under Section 341, IPC. there being no evidence about illegal confinement of the injured, confirmed the findings recorded by the Court below both in respect of guilt and also sentence imposed upon him and it is how that this revision is before this Court challenging the correctness of finding recorded by both the courts below.

(2.) The facts of the case are quite simple as it was alleged that on 20th November. 1990. while the petitioner was removing bricks from the custody of Chandramani Devi, on resistance by the latter, the petitioner along with others dealt blows with bricks on her, causing injuries to her. Seven witnesses were examined at trial including informant Chandramani Devi (PW 4) and three witnesses namely, Madho Singh (PW 1) Mohan Sharma (PW 2) and Bashist Narain Singh (PW 3), who claimed to be ocular witnesses of the incident. It would be apt to state that Mohan Sharma (PW 2) only stated to have noticed Chandramani Devi with bleeding wound on her mouth. Chandramani Devi (PW 4) was the injured and apart from the Police Officer, who conducted the investigation of the incident, the State also examined Dr. D.N. Sharma (PW 6), who stated to have noticed corresponding injuries on the person of Chandramani Devi.

(3.) Contention raised at Bar on behalf of the petitioner was that the testimony of witnesses, who claimed to be ocular, suffered inconsistency and also that the finding recorded by the doctor was not in conformity with the evidence of the ocular witnesses and hence the prosecution case has to be discarded. The next limb of the argument canvassed on behalf of the petitioner was that the prosecution was launched in the year 1990 and the petitioner has suffered the ordeal of protracted litigation for about 12 years and he remained in custody for about a month and on these premises, it is urged that regard being had to the nature of injuries suffered by the victim and also in the backdrop of the litigation between the parties, ends of justice would be met if substantive sentence imposed upon the petitioner was converted into fine. Learned Counsel for the State resisted the contention raised on behalf of the petitioner.