The credibility of witnesses and the presence of independent witnesses in late-night occurrences were considered, and the ongoing land dispute was deemed a motive for the assault.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Mrs. Jasvindar Mazumdar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners.

2. Heard Mr. Tapas Roy, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party-State.

3. The name of Haridwar Prasad Bhagat was deleted vide order dated 27.01.2021 as his legal heirs namely, Bijay Kumar Bhagat – Petitioner No. 2 in Cr. Rev. No. 796 of 2013 and Ajay Kumar Bhagat - Petitioner in Cr. Rev. No. 852 of 2013 are already before this Court and if the case is ultimately dismissed then the fine imposed upon Haridwar Prasad Bhagat will be realized from his two sons in equal proportion.

4. These two criminal revision petitions are directed against judgment dated 30.07.2013 passed by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Pakur in Cr. Appeal No. 44 of 2012 and Cr. Appeal No. 45 of 2012 whereby the appeals of the petitioners have been dismissed.

5. The learned trial court vide judgment of conviction and the order of sentence dated 31.08.2012 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Pakur in G.R. Case No. 422 of 2005 (T.R. No. 325 of 2012) had convicted the petitioners alongwith Haridwar Prasad Bhagat under Sections 323, 324/34 of the Indian Penal Code and they were sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for six months for offence punishable under Section 323/34 of Indian Penal Code and Rigorous Imprisonment for two years for offence punishable under Section 324/34 of Indian Penal Code. The convicts were further sentenced to deposit fine of Rs. 2,000/- each for the offence under Section 324/34 of Indian Penal Code and in default of payment of fine, one month extended Rigorous Imprisonment was directed to be given to them and all the sentences were directed to be run concurrently.

Arguments on behalf of the petitioners

6. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in both the cases submitted that there were altogether six accused persons in the case, but only 3 have faced the trial as the other three accused could not be identified and ultimately, they were convicted and sentenced by the learned trial court. She further submitted that all the accused persons were said to have assaulted, but only four injuries were found on the person of the informant and accordingly the petitioners are entitled to benefit of doubt.

7. She further submitted that the informant of the case had suffered four injuries and out of that, one injury was by sharp weapon on the right palm of the informant and the other three injuries were simple in nature caused by hard and blunt substance. She further submitted that there are material contradictions in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and accordingly, the petitioners should have been given benefit of doubt. The learned counsel also submitted that there was land dispute between the parties which was a cause of false implication of the petitioners.

8. She further submitted that P.W.-1 is the eye-witness of the occurrence and this witness has not stated that Haridwar Prasad Bhagat had provoked others for the assault whereas P.W.-11 had made such statement and therefore, there is contradiction in the evidence of P.W.-1 and P.W.-11, in as much as, there is omission to that effect in the evidence of P.W.-1.

9. She submitted that there is land dispute between the parties and there was no reason for the petitioners to assault the informant-party, in as much as, the case in connection with the land was decided by the Deputy Commissioner in favour of the petitioners which has come in the evidence of P.W.-1. She also submits that in another criminal case which was filed against the convicts of the present case on 04.08.2005 by the informant-party under Sections 467, 468, 472, 471, 419 and 420 of Indian Penal Code, the petitioners have been ultimately acquitted vide judgment dated 14.07.2017. She also submitted that there is no motive for the petitioners to assault the informant-party.

10. She further submitted that the investigating officer of the case deposed that he came to the plac