Order on Board

02.09.2022

1) This Criminal Revision is filed against judgment of conviction and sentence recorded by Fourth Additional Sessions Judge (FTC) Ambikapur, District- Sarguja (C.G.) whereby the conviction and sentence recorded by the learned trial Court in Criminal Case No. 772/2009 dated 30.10.2010 has been modified and the present applicant has been convicted under Section 325 of IPC and sentence has been reduced from 2 years RI to 1 year RI while maintaining the fine amount.

2) The case of the prosecution is that on 26.03.2005 at about 6 pm the complainant/victim was consuming liquor in the house of Sonbarashin alongwith Nawal, Keshav, Dholalal & Jailal, at the same time, present applicant reached there and assaulted the complainant PW/1 Namik by means of wooden club. The complainant sustained injuries over head, left hand wrist, knee of left leg and over back side of the body. On such complaint police registered the FIR for the offences punishable under Section 294, 506B, 323, 109 of IPC against the present applicant Lakhan Ram and one Chethoram. The complainant was taken to the hospital where X-Ray was taken 29.03.2004 & fractures of bone patella of left leg, fracture of radius bone of left hand were found.

After investigation, police filed charge-sheet and the learned trail Court framed charges for the offences punishable under Sections 294, 506B, 325 of IPC against present applicant and co-accused.

3) The prosecution examined four witnesses and exhibited only two documents. Learned trial Court after appreciation of the evidence, convicted the present applicant for the offence punishable under Sections 325 of IPC and sentenced him to undergo RI for 2 years and to pay fine of Rs. 500-500/-.

4) The appeal was preferred by present applicant and co-accused-

Chethoram, where co-accused was acquitted and the present applicant was convicted under Section 325 of IPC but sentence part was modified and it was reduced from 2 years to 1 year RI whereas fine part was maintained by the lower Appellate Court.

5) The present applicant has preferred this Criminal Revision against the judgment passed by the learned Sessions Court.

6) Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the prosecution has not produced any document like MLC, statements of the witnesses to prove the guilt of the present applicant and only two documents have been exhibited. The prosecution has not examined any independent witnesses to prove the guilt of the present applicant. She further submits that though two fractures have been found by the PW/2 Dr. MK Jain in his report but it is not established by the prosecution that the both the fractures are out come of the incident which had taken place on 26.03.2005. It is further argued by the counsel for the applicant that the incident took place in the year 2005, at that time age of the applicant was 25 years and at present he is aged about 42 years and the applicant has liabilities of his wife and children, thus, she prays for acquittal of the applicant.

7) On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant.

8) I have heard the parties and perused the record.

9) Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the fact that only four witnesses have been examined by the prosecution;

PW/1 Namik who is injured witness & complainant, has stated that on the date of incident the present applicant assaulted him by means of wooden club thereafter, FIR (Ex.P/1 ) was lodged by him. PW/2 Dhotaram and PW/4 Jagmaniya have not supported the case of the prosecution. PW/3 Dr. MK Jain has stated that on 29.03.2005 Namiksay/complainant was brought before him and X-Ray was taken, as per X-Ray report two fractures at patella of the left knee and radius bone of wrist of left hand were found. In cross-examination he has admitted that such injuries may occur if a person falls. The prosecution has exhibited only two documents i.e. Ex.P/1 FIR & Ex.P/2 X-Ray report. The prosecutio