The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for corroboration of evidence to establish mens rea in assault cases under Section 325 of the Indian Penal Code.

JUDGMENT :

Ananya Bandyopadhyay, J.

1. The instant revisional application is filed by the petitioner being aggrieved by and dissatisfied a judgment and order dated 10.05.2013 passed by the Court of the Learned Additional Session’s Judge, 2nd Court, Purulia in connection with Criminal Appeal No. 14 of 2008 thereby confirming the order of conviction and sentence dated 10.06.2008 passed by the Court of the Learned Judicial Magistrate, 3rd Court, Purulia in T.R. Case No. 771 of 2003 in connection with G.R. Case No. 747 of 1998 under Section 325 of the Indian Penal Code in connection with Jhalda Police Station Case No. 105 of 1998 dated 11.09.1998 under Section 325 of the Indian Penal Code further directing the petitioners to appeal before the Court of the Learned Trial Court on 28.06.2013 to serve out the sentence of simple imprisonment of one year each and also to pay fine of Rs.1,000/-each, in default, to undergo further imprisonment from 15 days each.

2. The petitioners stated that one Theluram Mahato, son of Late Manbodh Mahato, village-Mahadebpur, Police Station-Jhalda, District Puruia, in his written complaint alleged inter alia to the Officer-in-Charge, Jhalda Police Station, to the effect that on 10.09.1998 at about 2 pm when his son Dhiren was sitting in front of his house, concerning a dispute regarding land, Sankar Mahato and Dilip Mahato, both sons of Baidyanath, Village-Mahadebpur, Police Station-Jalda assaulted Dhiren with stick in their hands. Last evening he had taken his son to Jhalda Hospital wherefrom he was referred to Purulia Sadar Hospital. The complaint was received on 11.09.1998 at 11.25 hrs and Jhalda Police Station Case No.105 of 1998 dated 11.09.1998 under Section 325 of the Indian Penal Code was initiated.

3. The petitioners stated that in the injury report dated 10.09.1998 history of assault described assault of Sankar Mahato-his father, but charge-sheet was submitted against someone else, later charges under Sections 325/34 of the Indian Penal Code were framed without specifying as to who had assaulted with the lathi. The petitioners pleaded not guilty but after examining witnesses, by judgment dated 10.06.2008 the Court of the Learned Judicial Magistrate, 3rd Court, Purulia, in TR Case No.771 of 2003 (arising out of G.R. 747 of 1998) was pleased to pass an order convicting the petitioners under Section 325 of the Indian Penal Code, thereby sentencing them to suffer simple imprisonment for one year each and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/-each, in default, to undergo further imprisonment for 15 days each.

4. The Learned Advocate for the petitioners submitted that:-

i. The Appellate Court did consider as to whether the facts in issue and other relevant facts as essential to establish the charges framed were at all proved or not, especially, when charges under Sections 325/34 of the Indian Penal Code could not fill up the lacuna of vagueness in charge prejudicing the petitioners.

ii. The medical opinion never supported the charges brought, weapon of assault was not recovered, initial record of history of assault was contradictory with the prosecution case.

iii. The failure of the appellate court to consider the reasons and motive for delayed reporting of the offence, place of occurrence being doubtful, absence of disinterested natural witnesses, failure to assess the motive of implication as evidenced in counter case, actually nullified the basis of appellate judgment making it liable to be set aside.

5. The Learned Advocate for the petitioners further submitted that:-

i. On 4.7.13, victim of offence, son of complainant was added as the opposite party no. 2, being one Dhiren Mahato, Son of Theluram Mahato, village Mahadebpur, Police Station Jhalda, District Purulia who was served with the petition.

ii. The opposite party no. 2's date of birth being recorded, as appearing from Registration Certificate issued by the West Bengal Board of Secondary Education, being Annexure P/1, as 9.2.1983, was admittedly a juvenile