JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Mr. Anurag Kashyap, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner.

2. Heard Ms. Vandana Bharti, the learned A.P.P. appearing on behalf of Opposite Party-State.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that initially, the present criminal revision application was preferred by Bhim Tudu, but he died on 11.01.2018 during its pendency and thereafter, his wife namely, Talamay Devi preferred I.A. No. 4368/2018 in terms of Section 394 (Proviso) of Cr.P.C. to pursue the case further which was allowed by this Court vide order dated 25.06.2018 in which, it is also recorded that the original petitioner-Bhim Tudu has died on 11.01.2018 thereby necessitating his wife to pursue the criminal revision application in view of the fact that the original petitioner had lost his job on account of his conviction. Accordingly, the original petitioner namely, Bhim Tudu has been substituted by his wife and legal heir namely, Talamay Devi in the criminal revision application and now, she is the petitioner in this case before this Court.

4. The present criminal revision application is directed against the order dated 16.08.2012 passed by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Sahibganj in Criminal Appeal No. 04/2012 whereby and whereunder the learned appellate court confirmed the conviction and sentence of the original petitioner namely, Bhim Tudu under Sections 353 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code passed by the learned trial court, although acquitted him from the offence under Section 427 of the Indian Penal Code and partly allowed the criminal appeal.

5. The learned trial court, vide Judgment of conviction and the order of sentence dated 05.01.2012 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) No.II, Sahibganj in Railway G.R. Case No. 04 of 2003/Trial No. 285 of 2011 (arising out of Sahibganj GRPS Case No. 15/2003), had convicted the original petitioner namely, Bhim Tudu under Sections 323, 353 and 427 of the Indian Penal Code and had sentenced him to undergo Simple Imprisonment for one year for the offence under Sections 353 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code each and Simple Imprisonment for six months for the offence under Section 427 of the Indian Penal Code and had directed that all the sentences shall run concurrently.

Arguments on behalf of the petitioner

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner, while assailing the impugned judgments, submitted that the independent witnesses of the case i.e. P.Ws.3, 5 and 6 were declared hostile by the prosecution and P.W.-7 and P.W.-9 are the two investigating officers of the case. The investigation was initially taken up by P.W.-7 and was continued by P.W.-9, who submitted the charge-sheet. He submitted that the other witnesses, who claimed to be the eye-witness, are the constables who have been examined as P.Ws.- 1, 2 and 4 and they are interested witnesses. He further submitted that A.S.I. Naresh Prasad, who had recorded the fardbeyan of the informant, has not been examined and the doctor, who had treated the informant, has also not been examined in the case.

7. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the informant and the original petitioner were from police department and in fact, a sudden fight had taken place between them and there was no intention on the part of the original petitioner to assault the informant. He submitted that there was no occasion also to interfere with the discharge of the official duty of the informant and therefore, the basic ingredients of the offence under Section 353 of the Indian Penal Code are not satisfied against the petitioner in the present case.

8. The learned counsel submitted that these aspects of the matter have not been properly considered by the learned courts below and accordingly, the impugned judgments are perverse and call for interference of this Court for securing justice.

Arguments on behalf of the Opposite Party-State

9. The learned A.P.P. appearing for the Opposite Party-State, while opposing the prayer