JUDGMENT :

1. Pronounced on 15.01.2021 Heard Ms. Riya Narain, the learned Amicus appointed by this Court to argue this case on behalf of the petitioners.

2. Heard Mr. Abhay Kumar Tiwari, learned A.P.P. appearing on behalf of the Opposite Party-State.

3. This criminal revision petition is directed against the Judgment dated 26.08.2013 passed by the learned District & Additional Sessions Judge-I, Dumka in Criminal Appeal No. 117 of 2010 whereby and where under the learned appellate court confirmed the Judgment of conviction and the order of sentence of the petitioners passed by the learned trial court and dismissed the appeal.

4. The petitioners had preferred the criminal appeal against the Judgment of conviction and the order of sentence dated 17.08.2010 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Dumka in G.R. Case No. 1359 of 2007/T.R. Case No. 763 of 2010 (arising out of Jarmundi P.S. Case No. 212/2007 dated 20.10.2007) whereby and where under the petitioners were convicted under Sections 324/323/34 of the Indian Penal Code and were sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 20 days under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code and Rigorous Imprisonment for 02 months under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code. It was directed that both the sentences will run concurrently and the period undergone for detention shall be set off as per law.

Arguments on behalf of the petitioners

5. The learned Amicus appearing for the petitioners submitted that all the prosecution witnesses are hearsay witnesses. She further submitted that P.W.-1 has stated that when he came to the place of occurrence, the victim was lying injured on the floor and accordingly, P.W.-1 had not seen the occurrence. She submits that P.W.-3 is the brother of the victim and is an interested witness. She further submitted that P.W.-5 is the Doctor who had examined the informant/victim and he deposed that the injury was simple. She also submitted that Xray report was not exhibited before the learned trial court. She submitted that there is long standing enmity between the accused and the informant party and the petitioners have been falsely implicated in the case. She further submitted that both the learned courts have failed to appreciate the evidences properly and therefore, both the impugned judgments are perverse and are fit to be set aside.

Arguments on behalf of the Opposite Party-State

6. Learned A.P.P. appearing on behalf of the Opposite Party-State, on the other hand, submitted that the victim of the incident is the informant of the case who has been examined before the learned trial court and was fully cross-examined on behalf of the defence and he has fully supported the prosecution case and his evidence is fully corroborated by the evidence of the Doctor who stated that there was sharp cutting injury. He further submitted that concurrent findings of facts have been recorded by the learned courts below and the basic ingredients of the offences for convicting the petitioners have been satisfied and accordingly, no interference is called for in the revisional jurisdiction. The learned A.P.P. further submitted that he has filed a counter-affidavit in the present case indicating that the petitioners have already served the sentences awarded to them.

Findings of this Court

7. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going through the impugned judgments as well as the lower court records of the case, this Court finds that the prosecution case is based on the written report of the Informant namely, Falali Mahto (P.W.-4) submitted on 20.10.2007 before the Officer-in-charge, Jarmundi P.S., Dumka alleging inter-alia that on 20.10.2007 at about 03:30 A.M., when the Informant was trimming grass in front of his house, his gotiya Gullu Mahto and his son Bijendra Mahto came there abusing him. When the son of the Informant caught him, Gullu Mahto assaulted the Informant by means of ‘dab’ causing bleeding injury on his head. When the Informant began to weep and