The judgment established the importance of evidence in determining the severity of an offense and the applicability of specific sections of the Indian Penal Code based on the nature of the act.

R.N.Verma, J.

Invoking the revisional jurisdiction of this Court under sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as "the Code") all the three petitioners have prayed for setting aside the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 12.05.2004 passed by Ist Assistant Sessions Judge, Palamau at Daltonganj in Sessions Trial No. 109 of 1996 and affirmed by the Sessions Judge, Palamau at Daltonganj in Criminal Appeal No. 70 of 2004 with certain modification in the sentence.

2. The prosecution story in brief is that the informant Mandeep Rai (P.W.4) was sitting on his Darwaza on 15.11.1995 at 9 a.m. and watching his flour mill, when accused no. 1, Surendra Rai started quarreling with the grand son of Indradeo Rai (P.W.1), whereafter the informant and his brother Bishwanath Rai (P.W.5) tried to pacify the matter by scolding both of them. But in the meantime, petitioner no.1, Surendra Rai gave Garansa blow on the head of Bishwanath Rai, causing grievous injury. The other two petitioners namely, Murari Rai and Dhrub Rai, who were also holding lathi and sickle, assaulted the informant and his aunt. On the basis of said information, Lesliganj P.S.case no. 59 of 1995 was instituted under sections 341, 323, 324, 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code and after investigation, the police submitted the charge-sheet against the four named accused persons, whereafter cognizance of offence was taken but the case of the above three accused petitioners were only committed to the Court of Sessions. The case of the fourth accused, namely, Dilip Rai who was juvenile, was sent to Juvenile Court for inquiry under the Juvenile Justice Act.

3. The petitioners were put on trial by framing charge under section 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code. The prosecution in order to establish the guilt of the accused persons, examined altogether 12 witnesses including the injured Bishwanath Rai (P.W.5), Sarswati Devi (P.W.6) and the informant Mandeep Rai (P.W.4). The doctors , who had examined the other two injured persons were examined as P.W.10 and P.W.12. The doctor found one depressed fracture in the left side of frontal bone of injured Bishwanath Rai and the said injured was operated for depressed fracture and the depressed bone piece was removed. The doctor has opined that the nature of injury was grievous and the said injury report was marked as Ext.2. It has come in the evidence of P.W.10 that after examination of Bishwanath Rai by the doctors of Daltonganj Hospital, he was referred to RMCH, Ranchi, where he was admitted on 15.11.1995 and after treatment he was discharged on 25.11.1995.

4. The trial court after considering the evidence available on record, convicted petitioner no.1, Surendra Rai under section 307 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to under go R.I for Five years. Petitioner no.2 and 3, namely, Murari Rai and Dhrub Rai were also convicted under section 323 of the Indian Penal Code. Accordingly, they were sentenced to under go R.I. for One year. The above petitioners being aggrieved by the said judgment of conviction and order of sentence, preferred Criminal Appeal before the Sessions Judge. The Appellate Court after hearing both the parties affirmed the judgment of conviction and order of sentence, but reduced the sentence of Surendra Rai from Five years to Three years with a fine of Rs.2000/- and the sentence awarded to other two petitioners, namely, Murari Rai and Dhrub Rai were also reduced from One year to Six months each with a fine of Rs.500/- each. Thereafter, the petitioners preferred this revision.

5. Mr. A.K.Kashyap, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners while assailing the judgment of conviction and order of sentence submitted that the two courts below failed to appreciate that there was no repetition of blow and only single injury was found by the doctor as such the conviction of the petitioner no.1, Surendra Rai under section 307 of the Indian Penal Code is bad in law