ORDER

19.03.2024

01. The present criminal revision petition has been filed by the petitioner, who is the de-facto complainant in the case. He is aggrieved by the order of acquittal dated 31.07.2013 recorded by the Judicial Magistrate (Sub-Judge) Ist Class, Ram Nagar ( for brevity ‘learned Court below’) by which the respondents herein have been acquitted of the charge under Sections 341 and 323 RPC.

02. The brief facts of the case are as follows:-

An incident occurred on 21.01.2012 around 11:00 AM when the complainant-Sudesh Singh was going to cut the grass when respondents/accused Jagdish Singh and Vijay Kumar allegedly pounced upon him and assaulted him.

03. The respondent-Jagdish Singh was allegedly holding a Daraat (sickle, a sharp edged weapon) and allegedly assaulted the injured-Sudesh Singh with the said weapon, causing minor injuries to his three fingers on the right hand and injury on his right knee. The accused-Vijay Kumar is stated to have assaulted the complainant with kicks and blows. Upon his shouting for help, his wife Pooja Devi and one Jashi came to the scene of occurrence who are stated to have saved him. The complainant- Sudesh Singh’s MLC reflects that he has received four injuries out of which injuries 1, 2 and 4 are abrasions and injury No. 3 which relates to the injuries on his 3 fingers are recorded by the Doctor as lacerated injuries caused by a hard and blunt object. The complainant-Sudesh Singh is also a witness to the seizure memo along with PW Sukhdev Singh. The two independent witnesses, Rajesh Singh and Jashi, who were eye witnesses to the incident along with the complainant have not been produced before the trial Court to be examined as prosecution witnesses.

04. PW-Sukhdev Singh, who is a witness to the seizure memo has turned hostile as he is purportedly is the father-in-law of one of the respondents. The PW Doctor- Zakir Hussain was examined before the trial Court and he stated that the injuries suffered by the complainant-

Sudesh Singh could also have been the result of a fall.

05. The wife of the injured Pooja Devi has largely corroborated the statement of her husband, who is the injured. Both she and her husband-

Sudesh Singh have stated before the trial Court that for about 20-25 years they are having strained relation with the respondents.

06. PW-1 Sudesh Singh, the complainant, however, has rejected the suggestion made by the defence that there is a dispute pertaining to the land. No specific motive has been attributed either by the complainant or his wife for being assaulted due to the strained relationship with the respondents for 20-25 years.

07. The learned Court below having examined the evidence on record has arrived to the conclusion that there is discrepancy with regard to the nature of the weapon used as the ‘Daraat’ which is a sharp edged weapon and the injuries caused to the complainant are lacerated injuries which could be caused by a hard and blunt weapon.

08. Ms. Garima Gupta, arguing counsel for the petitioner has strenuously argued that a ‘Daraat’ is sharp only on one side and it is blunt on the other side and, therefore, a lacerated injury could also be caused by using a ‘Daraat’.

09. The submission made by Ms. Garima is attractive, however, whenever a witness states that a sharp edged weapon was used in the offence, the presumption is that the sharp side was used to cause the injuries and not the blunt side. The exception is only in the cases where the witness examined under Section 161 Cr.P.C or in the witness box specifically states that the blunt side of the weapon was used for causing the injury. In such a situation, the presence of a lacerated injury as a result of the attack by a sharp edged weapon can be deemed to have been properly explained by the witness.

10. In the facts and circumstances of this particular case, the witnesses have not stated that the blunt side of the ‘Daraat’ was used to cause injury. Therefore, the discrepancy between the weapon used and the injury c