RAMANAND MAHTO Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision is directed against the judgment dated 16.7.97 passed by 11th Additional Sessions Judge, Patna, in Cr. Appeal No. 71/94/48/94 confirming the judgment of the trial court passed by the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Patna city, in G.R. case no. 123/89/ 186/94. The revisionists were convicted for the offences under Sections 323 and 341/34 I.P.C. and they were sentenced to undergo R.I, for six months and one month respectively. The sentences were directed to run concurrently.

(2.) NO body appeared when the revision was called out for hearing. This Court is not under any obligation to hear the revisionist under Section 403 Cr. P.C. The memo of revision shows that orders of conviction recorded by the two courts below were assailed on the ground that doctor was not examined and the I.O. was also not examined. So, prejudice was caused to the accused - revisionists. However, on perusal of the judgments of the two courts below, I find that for non - examination of the I.O. the evidence on record remained undemolished because no serious contradiction was taken regarding the statement of the witnesses before the police compared to the same made in court. For an offence under Section 323 I.P.C. doctor 'sevidence is not necessary. There was no vital contradiction in the evidence of P.Ws. inter se. So, I am of the opinion that the judgments of the courts beiow are not yitiated by any legal error or procedural lacuna nor they suffer from error of record or misappreciation of evidenced. So, I do not think that there is any good case for interference with the findings of the courts below.