The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for trustworthy evidence and the scrutiny of witness credibility in proving alleged offences.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. This revision application is directed against the judgment of conviction dated 27.01.2007 passed by learned 1st Additional Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi in Cr. appeal No. 93 of 2005; whereby the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 28.05.2005 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Ranchi in Complaint Case No. 192 of 1998 (T.R. No. 1289 of 2005); whereby the petitioners were found guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 323/341 IPC and each of them were sentenced to undergo S.I. for 90 days (3 months) for the offence punishable under section 323 IPC and S.I. for 15 days for the offence punishable under section 341 IPC, and all sentences were ordered to run concurrently, has been affirmed and appeal filed by petitioner was dismissed.

3. The brief facts of the case is that the cricket match was being played among several children. The son of complainant (PW5) won the match and started to celebrate, but the defeated candidate (Petitioner No.3) got agitated and hit the complainant’s son several times with bat. Pursuant to which son of complainant complained about the incident to his mother (complainant) (PW6) who went along with her son to petitioner’s house and raised objection for the act of the beating with bat. Petitioner No. 1 and 2 assaulted the complainant and pushed her out of the house. She subsequently went to her husband to narrate the incident and accordingly complainant’s husband went to the police station to file complaint. Complainant thereafter went alone from there to her home and in the meanwhile she was again assaulted and beaten by the petitioners by covering her face. She was taken to the Police Station thereafter instead of taking her to the hospital for treatment and was even restrained from going to the hospital. She was kept at the Police Station till 11 PM.

4. Mrs. J.S.Mazumdar, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is material contradiction amongst the prosecution witnesses. She further submits that no medical report of the hospital or evidence of injury of the date of occurrence has been brought on record to show that the complainant CW6 and CW 5 have sustained injuries which itself falsifies the case of the prosecution as the Complainant has specifically stated that she sustained injury and was treated in RMCH.

She further submits that the register of RMCH is also unable to prove that she was admitted for five days in RMCH for the treatment of injury caused by these petitioners and also the prosecution could not explain why the complainant was admitted in the hospital after 10 days. She further submits that CW 7 who is the clerk of the concerned hospital has clearly stated in his deposition that he does not know who made the entry in the register on the said date.

She further submits that the independent witnesses have not supported the occurrence except CW4 but in the cross examination he himself said that it was Sunday and he was at home, so he did not see the occurrence and there is no eye witness to the alleged occurrence to support the occurrence.

She further submits that CW 3 is the chance witness who submitted that he saw the occurrence but was unable to justify as to what he was doing 5-6 km away from his home. She lastly submits that it is nothing but a minor scuffle between the children while playing, but due to enmity, the entire family member have been implicated just to take revenge.

5. Learned Addl. P.P. submits that there is no error in the findings given by the learned trial court, as such, the conviction cannot be set aside.

6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after going through the impugned judgments and the lower court record, it appears that the evidence produced by the prosecution are not reliable, inasmuch as, there are material contradictions in the statement of prosecution witnesses. It transpires from the deposition of C.W 1 who is the husband of the complain