Prosecution must establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt; inconsistencies in witness statements entitle the accused to benefit of doubt.

JUDGMENT

Ananya Bandyopadhyay, J.:-

1. The instant revisional application has been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 06.05.2000 passed by the Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Purulia in Criminal Appeal No.28 of 1996 (G.R. Case No.1173/90 & T.R. No.22/92), acquitting all the 8 co-accused of all the charges but confirming the order of conviction and sentenced passed by the Learned Judicial Magistrate, 3rd Court, Purulia on 24.06.96 convicting the petitioner under Section 148 read with Section 236 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 2 years and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- in default to suffer further rigorous imprisonment of 3 months under Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code, no separate sentence had been passed under Section 148 of the Indian Penal Code and also directing that half of the entire amount of fine if realized be paid to the injured i.e. Opposite Party No.1 by way of compensation.

2. The prosecution case precisely stated on 08.08.1990 at about 09:30 to 10:00 a.m., the 9 accused persons including the petitioner being armed with deadly weapons and by forming an unlawful assembly trespassed into the ‘Khamar Bari’ of the opposite party no.1 and started felling bamboos. On protest by the opposite party no.1, the petitioner and others surrounded him and severely assaulted him and threatened him with dire consequences. The petitioner assaulted the opposite party no.1 with ‘farsa’ on his left hand causing a severe injury. The opposite party no.1 lodged a complaint at Purulia P.S. being Purulia Police Station Case No.204 of 1990 dated 08.08.1990.

3. On 03.04.1992 the Learned Trial Court framed charges against the present petitioner and other alleged offenders under Sections 326/149 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 148 of the Indian Penal Code, read with Section 324/149 of the Indian Penal Code.

4. In order to prove its case, the prosecution had examined as many as 6 witnesses while the defence examined as many as 3 witnesses.

a) PW-1, sister of the de-facto complainant Bishnupada Mahato, deposed that all the 9 accused persons were cutting away bamboo trees from their land. The opposite party no.1 protested and Deben Mahato assaulted him on the left hand with a farsa and the appellant assaulted him on the right hand with a farsa almost chopping off his right thumb. Then, the accused persons assaulted her with stones, fists and blows.

In her statements to the police under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. stated that the appellant assaulted the opposite party no.1 with a farsa on his left thumb which was almost chopped off.

In her cross-examination stated that the accused persons cut 6/7 bamboo. She did not find any injury on the persons of the accused.

b) PW-2 deposed many villagers came to the spot during the occurrence and corroborated the evidence PW-1. The accused cut 24 bamboo trees. She admitted that the accused persons filed a case against them for the self-same incident. She did not know if the accused persons suffered any injury during the incident.

In her statements to the police under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. stated that the appellant assaulted the opposite party no.1 with a farsa, almost chopping off his left thumb.

c) PW-3, the de-facto complainant deposed there was a land of Jyoti Mahato adjacent to their Khamar Bari and the accused were cutting trees from the southern side of his Khamar Bari, on being assaulted by Deben Mahato and the appellant, he rushed to the P.S. with his right thumb almost chopped of. His father drafted the complaint. and he signed it by