P.N.Bakshi - (1.) THESE are two connected revisions. Criminal Revision No. 1635/1980 has been filed by Sachchidanand Pathak and 8 others. Out of these revisionists, Behari Thakur son of Bhuneshwar Thakur has since died. His revision abates. The other connected revision is Criminal Revision No. 1906 of 1980 filed by Arun Kumar. Both these revisions arise out of a conviction recorded by the trial court for offences under sections 147, 148, and 307/149 IPC and sentences of varying terms of imprisonment imposed thereunder. In appeal, the Sessios Judge, Allahabad has set aside the conviction of these accused-applicants for the offences under Secs.307/149 IPC, instead they have been convicted under Sec. 325/149 IPC and sentenced to 2 years' R. I., thereunder. The conviction of Sri Prakash Singh for the offence under Sec. 148 and the sentence of six month's R. I. imposed by the trial court has been maintained by the court of appeal. The conviction of the rest of the applicants under Sec. 147 IPC and a similar sentence of six months' R.I. has also been maintained by the lower appellate court. In these circumstances, both these revisions have been filed.
(2.) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the impugned orders. I have also minutely examined the relevant record of the case. It is not necessary for me to go into the details of the prosecution story and the defence case and to examine the evidence which has been produced by the parties and relied- upon by the courts below. The bald finding of fact, which has to be accepted in the instant case, having been concurrently recorded by both the subordinate courts, is that on the exhortation of Lallan Rai, applicant no. 8, the other accused-persons caused injuries to the victim Lallan Singh at 6.30 A. M. in the morning on 16th October, 74, at Renuccot crossing. These injuries were 26 in number, Sri Prakash was armed with a knife which was struck on the victim, but the blow was warded off by Lallan Singh with his hand, thereby causing an abrasion on the middle former surface of the right: palm. The rest of the applicants were armed with dandas and rods. There are 25 other injuries on the person of the victim in nature of lacerated wounds, bruises and swellings. These injuries have been proved in accordance with law by the production of the Doctor concerned. Counsel for the applicant has made a number of submissions. His first submission was that the order of the appellate court is not satisfactory inasmuch as he has not dealt properly with the evidence led on behalf of the prosecution and has based his findings mainly on the weakness of the defence. I have examined the submissions and have carefully gone through the impugned order, passed by the Sessions Judge. In my opinion, this criticism is not tenable. The impugned order may not be to the liking of the applicant, or may not be worded in the way he wants it to be worded, but we cannot say that prosecution evidence has not been considered independently and that the weakness of the defence is responsible for the conviction of the accused. Both the courts have concurrently considered the evidence on the record and have come to the conclusion that the offence has been satisfactorily established. I do not find any reason to interfere with these findings of fact, on the ground either of illegality or error. Applicants' counsel has next argued before me that the offence under Sec. 325/149 IPC has not been made out in view of the findings recorded by the Sessions Judge and the evidence on the record. In the instant case, the Sessions Judge has held the offence of Sec. 325/149 IPC proved, taking the help of clause (8) of Sec. 320 IPC. This clause runs as follows : "320 The following kinds of hurt only are designated as 'grievous.' Eighthly "any hurt which endangers life or which causes the sufferer to be during the space of twenty days in severe bodily pain, or unable to follow his ordinary pursuits." This section has three sub-divisions. It deals with a situation where hurt endangers life. It also deals with a situation where the hurt causes to the sufferer severe bodily pain for a period of 20 days. It further envisages a situation where the sufferer is unable to follow his ordinary pursuits for 20 days.
(3.) THE question for consideration is whether the circumstances of the case and the evidence on the record are sufficient to cover either of these three situations. So far as the first situation is concerned, it will be enough to quote from the impugned order, passed by the Sessions Judge to the following effect: - "In this case the doctor has said that he could not give a correct opinion, whether the cumulative effect of the injuries could result in the death of the injured Lallan Singh. He has waivered that death could have been caused and might not have been caused." In view of this finding, it cannot be said that the injuries which have been inflicted on Lallan Singh were such as to endanger his life. With regard to the second, situation, the evidence on the record of the injured Lallan Singh is that he remained in the hospital of the Factory for about 22 to 24 days, and even thereafter the: treatment was continued. This is the entire evidence in this connection. No doctor of the Factory has been produced to prove and to corroborate the statement off the injured Lallan Singh that he did in fact remain confined in the hospital as an indoor patient for 20 days. No bed-head ticket has been produced nor even a Nurse or attendant has come forward in evidence. Further the statement of Lallan Singh does not indicate that for the period of 20 days he was in severe bodily pain. As such it would be rather speculative to accept the uncorroborated statement of Lallan Singh that he remained in the Factory hospital for 22 to 24 days. In my opinion, the prosecution has failed totally to prove this fact by leading convincing and cogent oral and documentary evidence to corroborate the statement of the injured. In this position even the second situation is not applicable for the attraction of See. 320, IPC.;