PANNA LAL KESHRI Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS criminal revision application is against the concurrent finding of both the Courts below when finding of guilt recorded by the Court below against petitioners was confirmed by the appellate Court with admonition to them as enjoined under Section 3 of the Probation of Offenders Act. Since learned Counsel for the petitioners despite adjournment on the last day has not appeared even today to argue the case, after perusal of the record and hearing Counsels for Opp-Parties finding is recorded as follows:

(2.) THE factual matrix as appearing from the first information report and also the narrations made by the witnesses at trial are that on 12.6.1997 since petitioner No. 1 was constructing wall in the passage which could have blocked the ingress to the house of Kalo Devi, she registered a protest, pursuant to which there had been abuses between Kalo Devi, P.W. 4 and petitioner No. 2, both of whom pulled hairs of each other. When Tarn San came and resisted action of the petitioners, the prosecution alleges that petitioner No. 1 dealt a lathi blow on his head and thereafter he was carried to hospital and thought the police was informed, barring sanha entry recorded in the police station for initiation a proceeding under Section 107 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, there was no breakthrough in the matter. THE said Tarni Sah eventually filed a petition of complaint before the Court which was transmitted to the Police and on conclusion of investigation the police laid charge-sheet in the Court. In the eventual trial that commenced, the State examined altogether seven witnesses including the injured, his son, other family members, the doctor and other witnesses.

(3.) FROM revision application it would seem that the finding recorded by both the Courts below was sought to be challenged on premises that the credibility of the finding recorded by the doctor was open to question as no time of examination of the injury was recorded in the injury report. Other criticism which was sought to be made against the finding of the Court was that the story of construction of wall which was the genesis of the incident had not been established by cogent evidence and also that though evidence of unimpeachable character had been brought on the record by petitioners with the aid of testimony of witnesses and documents those were not given credence by the Court below.