GANESH PASWAN Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) All the four petitioners have been convicted for an offence punishable under Sections 448, 323, 325 read with Section 34 of the IPC in G.R. Case No. 678 of 2000 by Sri Mahavir Prasad, Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Nawadah with a direction to undergo S.I. for six months as well as also slapped with fine of Rs. 500/- each, for an offence punishable under Section 448 of the IPC, S.I. for one month each for an offence punishable under Section-323 IPC and S.I. for six months as well as also slapped with fine of Rs. 500/- under Section 325/34 of the IPC with a further direction that in case of default of payment of fine to undergo S.I. for one month additionally with a direction to run the sentences concurrently which is found concurred in Cr. Appeal No.6/11/3/12 vide judgment dated 22.03.2013 passed by Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge-4th preferred instant revision petition challenging the successive judgments.

(2.) It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioners that altogether nine PWs have been examined out of whom PW-4, Bhola Paswan and PW-5 Shakuntala Devi are the victims. PW-9 is the doctor. Other witnesses are not eyewitness to the occurrence according to their own version. There is inconsistency in between PW-4 and PW-5 on each and every aspect. Therefore, their evidence in its totality did not support the case of the prosecution. PW-9, the doctor during course of cross-examination had admitted that the injuries whatever found over the person of PWs-4 and 5 can be caused even by fall. The I.O. has not been examined. As such, the cumulative effect on account of aforesaid infirmities lead to conclusive assurance that prosecution has not been able to substantiate its case. Consequent thereupon, the conviction of guilt as well as sentence is not at all maintainable.

(3.) On the other hand, learned APP while supporting concurrent finding of the fact submitted that unless and until there happens to be glaring defect coupled with manifest error visualizing from the judgment impugned, it should not be disturbed in a routine manner during course of exercising revisional jurisdiction.