Order On Board

23.08.2022

1. The applicant has filed the instant Criminal Revision against the judgment passed by the learned Sessions Court, Janjgir-Champa in Session Trial No. 124/06 dated 06.12.2007 whereby the non-applicant No. 1 has been acquitted from the charges of the Section 333 of the Indian Penal Code.

2. The case of the prosecution is like that the applicant was posted as a Aushadhalay Sevak in District Ayurved Hospital Janjgir and on 08.03.2006 he was distributing the medicines to the general public and at the same time the Non-applicant No. 1 reached there and slapped him. The written complaint was lodged before the Police Station by the (PW-6) Har Prasad Pandey on 13.03.2006 and on the basis of that written complaint, FIR was registered vide (Exhibit-P/7) on 13.03.2006. (PW-1) Dr. Nandini Chandravanshi had examined the applicant and she has stated that the applicant was complaining pain in left ear and he was referred to ENT Specialist. The (PW-2) Chandel Singh has deposed that A.R. Khan, Non-Applicant No.1 was posted on the post of Assistant Grade.-III in the same office and the present applicant called him but when complainant did not turn-up, there was exchange of hot words between them and there was scuffle too. (PW-3) Sahadeo Kumar has deposed allow (PW-2) Chandel Singh, (PW-4) has separately the case of the prosecution. (PW-5) the applicant has deposed that he was called by the non-applicant No. 1 but he could not join immediately. Therefore, there was hypercation in them and he was slapped by the non-applicant. (PW-7) Dr. R.K. Singh has stated in the Para-2 there was internal injury in the left ear of the applicant and clotting of blood was also present. It was examination he has admitted that without any Sonography or X-ray report was given by him. The investigating officer (PW-8) Har Prasad Pandey has proved the registration of FIR, recording of statements of between them seized accept and filing of charge-sheet.

3. The learned trial Court after appreciation of evidence and perusal of the record acquitted the non-applicant No. 1 by holding applicant as well as the non- applicant No. 1 both were working in the same office as public servant. Therefore, the provisions of section 333 of the IPC would not attract. Further the learned trial Court has found the case of the prosecution doubtful. The learned trial Court has also considered the evidence of Doctor (PW-7) he has stated that on the Superficial diagnosis report was given without sonography or x-ray. Considering all these facts the learned trail Court has acquitted the main non- applicant No. 1. In the case against the judgment of the acquittal if two views are possible, the view which is in favour of the accused should be given weightage. Considering these all aspects I am not inclined to interfere with the judgment passed by the learned Court below. Consequently the Criminal Revision is dismissed at the motion stage itself.