Revisional jurisdiction limited to perversity; concurrent convictions set aside for overlooked medical discrepancies, unexplained accused injuries with interested witnesses, and reasonable doubt from competing defence.

Judgment :

Rakesh Kainthla, J.

The present revision is directed against the judgment dated 16.5.2014, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ghumarwin, District Bilaspur, Camp at Bilaspur (learned Appellate Court), vide which the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 30.1.2013, passed by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Court No. 2, Ghumarwin, District Bilaspur (learned Trial Court), were upheld. (Parties shall hereinafter be referred to in the same manner as they were arrayed before the learned Trial Court for convenience.)

2. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present petition are that the police presented a challan before the learned Trial Court against the accused for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 323, 325 and 342 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). It was asserted that the victim/informant Ranjeet Singh (PW1) was told by Satya Devi (PW5) on 21.9.2010 that the accused Rattan Singh was digging the land for laying the foundation of his house, whereas the Court had already passed an order of partition of the land. The informant Ranjeet Singh went to his home. He requested accused Rattan Singh to stop the construction. He returned after some time. He was armed with a stick to defend himself. Rattan Singh, Tara Devi and Shashi Kumar dragged him to the room. Shashi Kumar gave beatings to the informant with a stick. The informant sustained injuries to his finger and left wrist. An intimation was given to the police. Pushap Raj (PW8), Bhupinder Singh, HHC Om Prakash and HHG Pawan Kumar were sent to verify the correctness of the information. ASI Pushap Raj recorded the informant’s statement (Ex.PW1/A) and sent it to the Police Station, where FIR (Ex.PW8/A) was registered. ASI Pushap Raj filed an application (Ex.PW7/A) for the medical examination of the injured. Dr Priyanka (PW7) medically examined informant Ranjeet Singh and found that he had sustained multiple injuries. She advised X-ray. Dr D. Bhangal (PW6) went through X-ray and found fractures of the right ulna and proximal phalanx of the left index finger. He issued the report (Ex.PW6/A). Dr Priyanka (PW7) stated that the nature of the injury was grievous. She issued the MLC (Ex.PW7/B). Dr Priyanka also examined accused Rattan Singh and found that he had sustained multiple injuries. She advised X-ray, but no fracture was detected. Hence, the nature of the injury was stated to be simple. She issued the MLC (Ex.PW7/B). ASI Pushap Raj investigated the matter. He went to the spot and took photographs (Ex.PW8/C1 to Ex.PW8/C3) and prepared the site plan (Ex.PW8/D). Accused Shashi Kumar produced two sticks (Ex. P1 and Ex.P2) and one lock. These were seized vide memo (Ex.PW2/A). The statements of witnesses were recorded as per their version, and after the completion of the investigation, the challan was prepared and presented before the learned Trial Court.

3. Learned Trial Court found sufficient reasons to summon the accused. When the accused appeared, they were charged with the commission of offences punishable under Sections 342, 323 and 325 read with Section 34 IPC, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4. The prosecution examined nine witnesses to prove its case. Ranjeet Singh (PW1) is the informant/victim. Prem