DULARCHAND RAJAK Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE aforesaid appeal and criminal revision were taken up for analogous hearing as they arise out of the same judgment dated 14th August, 2000 passed by Ist Addl. Sessions Judge, Munger, in session case No. 383/88. Appellant Dilip Rajak was convicted for the offence under Section 322, IPC and was directed to furnish bond of Rs. 5,000/ - with two sureties of the like amount to maintain peace for one year and to be of good behaviour for the same period. Revisionists were also convicted for the same offence and they were also directed to furnish bond as mentioned above.

(2.) THE prosecution case was based on FIR lodged by Subodh Rajak (exhibit 1), wherein he alleged that on 24.6.1987 at 5 a.m. the accused -revisionists alongwith others came to his house armed with a lathi -danda and entered into the courtyard and assaulted his sister -in -law and wife of his younger brother, when the informant and his cousin went to protest, they were also subjected to assault. Some villagers gathered which prevented further assault upon the victims. In the aforesaid occurrence of assault at the hands of the accused, Sabitri Devi, Usha Devi, Lalita Kumari and other female inmates of the house including cousin of the informant received injury.

(3.) REVISIONIST 'slawyer submitted before me that many of the revisionists are government servants and initially, they were charged under Section 307, IPC. Dularchand Rajak alone was simply charged under Section 307, IPC and other revisionists were charged under Section 307/149, IPC and under Section 448, IPC. No doctor was examined. I.O. was also not examined. It was. therefore, submitted that on account of this, the Trial Court acquitted the accused - revisionists for the offence under Section 307/149 including 448, IPC. The evidence of PWs was inter se contradictory and almost all the witnesses were interested ones. Hence the order of conviction recorded by the Trial Court was not sustainable. In the aforesaid circumstances, revisionist 'slawyer submitted that the revisionists may be acquitted for the charges. I find that the Trial Court stated in its judgment that PWs were consistent in their testimony regarding the alleged assault on its material particulars. Non - examination of the I.O. did not affect the prosecution story because all PWs were consistent in their evidence on its material particular. Section 307, IPC was not proved due to non - examination of the doctor and that is why the revisionists were convicted for the offence under Section 323, IPC. However, I find from perusal of the judgment of the lower Court that besides the family members of the informant PWs 2, 4 and 5 were residents of the same village and they were independent witnesses who also supported the alleged occurrence of assault. The evidence of the prosecution witnesses also disclosed that there was also a counter case (Dharahara P.S. Case No.49/87) in which accused Ramroop Rajak had alleged assault upon men of his side. His occurrence was of the same day and at the same time. It is quite apparent that on the date of the occurrence, both parties had gathered at the same place and perhaps indulged in mutual assault on one another. In such circumstances, presence of all the revisionists was well admitted. In this view of the matter, non - examination of the I.O. will not fatally affect the prosecution case. Revisionists were charged as I have stated above and yet the Trial Court convicted them only for the offence under Section 323, IPC. Other charges have not been established. There is no rule of law that the interested witnesses would become unreliable. However, in this case, there were independent witnesses as well. In all circumstances, I do not think the Trial Court was basis of the evidence on record. I am further of the opinion that simply because revisionists were government servants, they cannot deserve any leniency from this Court; in so far as government servants should be expected to be more responsible in not breaking law and order and not to indulge in any overt act. The Trial Court was rather lenient towards them in directing them to furnish bond instead of sentencing them (the revisionists). So, I think there is no scope for further leniency.