- (1.) C. A. Rahim, J.- This Revision has been directed against the judgment and order of Sessions Judge, Ghazipur, dated 27-6- 1984 in Criminal Appeal No. 26 of 1984. By that judgment he convicted the appellant under Section 3231. P. C. and sen tenced to suffer R. I. for six months.
(2.) AN Appeal was preferred before the Sessions Judge, Ghazipur, against the con viction and sentence passed by the IVth Munsif Magistrate, Ghazipur, on 30-1-1984 under Section 332 I. P. C. and sentenced to suffer R. I. for one year. The prosecution case, in brief, is that N. L. Vishwakarma, Assistant Engineer of Bridge Construction Unit while on surprise duty on 2-6-1980 in the night at about 10 p. m. found the accused- appellant, a Chaukidar of the said firm, sleeping. Shri Vishwakarma thereupon chastised the ac cused who apologised but on the next morn ing at about 7. 10 a. m. when Sri Vishwakar ma was going to supervise the work was beaten on the way by the accused with a lathi on the allegation that Sri Vishwakarma was trying to take away the service of the ac cused. He suffered injuries. On being at tracted by the alarm raised by him Ishwar Chand Verma came there and intervened and snatched the lathi from the hands of the accused. An oral report of the incident was lodged at the police station after half an hour of the incident. The police registered a non-cognizable case under Section 323 I. P. C. On the following day a written com plaint was sent. Thereafter the case was con verted to a case under Section 332 I. P. C. The investigation ensued followed by filing a charge-sheet. The learned Magistrate after considering the materials on record con victed the accused and sentenced him in the aforesaid manner. On Appeal Section 332 (sic) was altered to section 323 I. P. C. and the sentence was reduced to six months R. I. on the ground that at the initial report the complainant did not mention that he was on official duty at the relevant time.
(3.) SRI S. K. Verma, learned counsel ap pearing for the appellant, has submitted that both the eye witnesses having not cor roborated the prosecution story, the solitary statement of P. W. 1 (complainant) should not be believed. He has submitted that there was doubt as regards the date of permission the written report which was at first dated 3-6-1980 and thereafter altered to 4-6-1980. So existence of the said report was He has also submitted that both the courts below did not consider the provision of Section 360 Cr. P. C. and convicted the appellant illegally. With regard to assessment of evidence of hostile witness, Sri Verma has relied on the case of Bhagwan Singh v. The State of Haryana, AIR 1976 SC 202 and the case of Sat Paul v. Delhi Administration, AIR 1976 SC 294. In both the cases it was held that when a witness is declared hostile that fact does not completely efface his evidence. The evidence remains admissible in the trial and there is no legal bar to base a conviction upon the testimony if corroborated by other reliable evidence.;