IMPORTANT POINT
Non-examination of Investigating Officer and Doctor does not affect prosecution case in any way where evidence of PWs is credible.

JUDGMENT

Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.—Heard Mr. A.K. Chaturvedy, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners.

2. Heard Mr. Jitendra Pandey, the learned A.P.P. appearing on behalf of the Opposite Party-State.

3. The present criminal revision petition is directed against the Judgment dated 26.09.2013 passed by the learned District & Additional Sessions Judge-II, Chatra in Criminal Appeal No. 45/2012, whereby and whereunder the learned appellate court upheld the conviction of the petitioners under Sections 147, 341 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code passed by the learned trial court and set aside the sentence of the petitioners and directed the learned trial court to release the petitioners on furnishing bond of Rs.20,000/- with two sureties each of the same amount for two years under Section 4 of the Probation of the Offenders Act, 1958 and the petitioners were further directed to appear and receive sentence when called upon during such period as the learned trial court may direct and in the meantime, to keep peace and be of good behaviour and allowed the appeal partly.

4. The petitioners had preferred the criminal appeal against the Judgment of conviction and the order of sentence dated 28.08.2012 passed by the learned Civil Judge, (Junior Division)-V, Chatra in G.R. Case No. 678 of 2006 / Tr. Case No. 441/2012 (arising out of Hunterganj P.S. Case No.80/2006 dated 17.10.2006) whereby and whereunder the petitioners were held guilty and convicted and sentenced under Sections 147, 341 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code and were acquitted for alleged offence under Sections 337 and 504 of Indian Penal Code.

Arguments on behalf of the petitioners

5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that although the learned appellate court has given the benefit of Probation of Offenders Act to the petitioners, but the conviction by itself is a stigma upon the petitioners and accordingly, the case may be decided on merits.

6. Learned counsel submitted that so far as conviction of the petitioners are concerned, concurrent findings have been recorded by the learned courts below, but the learned courts below have failed to consider that arising out of same incident, a counter case being Hunterganj P.S. Case No.79 of 2006 dated 17.10.2006 was filed in which Charge-sheet No.137 of 2008 dated 23.11.2008 was submitted which has been exhibited in the present case as Exhibit-A and the occurrence had arisen out of land dispute between the parties.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that although there were number of persons who were said to have witnessed the occurrence, but only four prosecution witnesses have been examined and out of them, two are interested and related witnesses and the third one has not stated anything serious against the petitioners and although P.W.-4 is an independent witness, but she has stated in cross-examination that she had not seen the occurrence. He also submitted that neither the Investigating Officer of the case has been examined, nor any injury report has been brought on record from the side of the prosecution. He submitted that considering the aforesaid aspects of the matter, the judgment of conviction is perverse and the impugned judgments are fit to be set aside and accordingly, the petitioners should be given the benefit of doubt.

8. The learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that without prejudice to the aforesaid submissions, if this Court is not inclined to interfere with the judgments of conviction, the petitioners shall furnish the required bonds as directed by the learned appellate court within a stipulated timeframe as may be directed by this Court.

Arguments on behalf of the Opposite Party-State

9. Learned counsel for the Opposite-Party-State submitted that concurrent finding of facts has been recorded by the learned courts below and there is no scope of re-appreciation of the evidences for interference in revisional jurisdiction. H