SHEO NARAIN Vs. MAHADA RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a petition for revision of the appellate judgment of learned Sessions Judge, Jhunjhunu, dated November 3, 1970 by which he has upheld the conviction of petitioners Sheo Narain and Bhura Ram for offences Under Section 323 I.P.C. but reduced the sentence to a fine of Rs. 200/. each.

(2.) THE incident giving rise to the petition is alleged to have taken place on June 3, 1959, in a portion of field No. 341 of Dhani Jhuntha, of village Bbanpur, tehsil Chirawa. A complaint regarding the incident was filed by Mahada Ram P.W. 2 on June 17, 1959, against six persons including petitioners Sheo Narain and Bhura Ram. It was alleged by him that he was beaten by the accused in his portion of the field as they nursed a grievance against him on account of his possession on his own portion of the field It was alleged that while he was plugging his field on June 3, 1959, the accused came and beat him with 'lathis'. It was stated further that he (Mahadaram) went to lodge a report with the police, but it was not properly recorded, and that when the police did not arrange for his medical examination, he got himself examined by Dr. H.P. Rastogi P.W. 1, Medical Officer, Sadar Hospital, Chirawa the same day. The case had a protracted trial, and ultimately petitioners Sheo Narain and Bhura Ram were convicted of the offences Under Section 323 I.P.C. and were sentenced to simple imprisonment for 2 months and a fine of Rs. 200/ - each. In default of payment of fine, they were ordered to undergo further imprisonment of one month. Rs. 250/ - were ordered to be paid by way of compensation to Mahada Ram Against that judgment of the learned Munsif -Magistrate, Chirawa, dated August 24, 1968, the petitioners filed an appeal. It was heard and decided by lparned Sessions Judge, Jhunjhunu, on November 3, 1970. As has been stated, he has maintained the conviction of the petitioners but reduced the sentence to a fine of Rs. 200/ - each. The imprisonment of one month which was ordered in default of payment of the fine, has been maintained.

(3.) IT has been argued by the learned Counsel for the petitioners that there was an inordinate delay in filing the complaint, and that was enough to discredit the allegations of complainant Mahada Ram P.W. 2 It has been pointed out that while the incident took place on June 3. 1969, the complaint was filed on June 17, 1969. The argument is however not tenable because of two reasons. Firstly, the complainant has stated that he made a report to the police the same day, and there is no reascn for disbelieving his statement to this effect. Secondly, the complainant got his injuries examined by Dr. H.P. Rastopi P.W. 1 the same day, at about 4 p.m. The Medical Officer has proved the injury report Ex. P 1 and bas stated that atleast one of the injuries could not be self inflicted. There is thus no justification for the argument that there bas been an unexplained delay in prosecuting the accused.