IMPORTANT POINT
Conviction cannot be sustained when relying on unexhibited evidence and procedural discrepancies, compromising fair trial rights.

ORDER :

JITENDRA KUMAR, J.

1. The present Criminal Revision Petition has been preferred by the Petitioner against the impugned judgment dated 15.07.2019 and order of sentence dated 15.07.2019 passed by learned Court of Sessions Judge, Patna in Criminal Appeal No. 277 of 2011, whereby in pursuance of the Criminal Complaint bearing Complaint Case No.1375(C) of 2000 corresponding to Trial No.1243 of 2010, learned Court of Judicial Magistrate 1^st Class, Patna had found four accused persons including the Petitioner guilty under Section 323 and 384 of the Indian Penal Code and all the convicts were sentenced to R.I. for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- Under IPC and R.I. for three years and fine of Rs. 1,000/- under Section 384 . However, in the Criminal Appeal filed by four convicts including the Petitioner, the other three convicts were acquitted of all the charges but the conviction of the Petitioner, Bal Manohar Jalan was part set aside and part upheld. The Petitioner was acquitted of charge under , but he was found guilty under and even sentence under was modified by giving benefit by releasing him on probation under the Probation of Offenders Act and with direction to the Petitioner to pay compensation amount of Rs.10,000/- to the victim.

2 . Hence, the present Criminal Revision Petition has been filed by the Petitioner.

3. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that as per the material on record, the very conviction of the Petitioner is not sustainable and the judgment of conviction under Section 323 IPC is full of perversity of finding of facts. There is apparent contradictions in the finding of the Court in view of the fact that the victim has alleged that he was assaulted by all the four accused but learned Appellate Court has acquitted all the other three accused but he has not acquitted the Petitioner herein.

4. He further points out that there is no cogent evidence on record to show that the alleged victim was assaulted by him. He further clarifies that as per the statement of the victim, he was treated subsequent to the assault by a doctor but during the trial, no medical prescription regarding treatment or any injury report has been brought on record by exhibiting the same but learned Trial Court as well as learned Appellate Court has committed serious error of law by reading the injury report which was not exhibited. A document being in the file and being a part of record are two distinct concepts. Unless any document is exhibited and brought on record for consideration of the Court during the Trial, the Trial Court or any Appellate Court is not permitted to read it for passing the judgment. This perversity is apparent on record. Whereas learned Trial Court referring to the injury report, has believed that the victim had got injury.

5. He also points out that learned Trial Court and learned Appellate Court has disbelieved the case of the victim against all other accused and they have also not believed the prosecution case against the other co-accused in regard to the assault, whereas the allegation of the alleged victim is that he was assaulted not only by the Petitioner but also by other co- accused. But there is no basis for the Trial Court or the Appellate Court to find that the allegation of the victim against the Petitioner is proved. The whole conviction is based on surmises and conjectures without any supporting evidence on record.

6. However, learned APP for the State submits that there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned judgment of conviction and the order of sentence and the Petitioner has been rightly convicted and sentenced by learned Trial