P.K.Jain - (1.) HEARD Sri D. S. Tewari, learned counsel for the revisionist and learned A.GA for the State.
(2.) SRI U. S. M. Tripathi, learned counsel for the opposite parties has sent illness slip but since after hearing the learned counsel for the revisionist, I am not inclined to allow the revision, there is no need to hear SRI U. S. M. Tripathi. On the report of one Ram Raj a case under Section 323/325/504/506, I.P.C. was registered against opposite parties Ram Lakhan, Rati Ram, Daulat and Ram Pyare. The allegations were that on 7.1.76 at about 5.00 or 6.00 p.m. all the four accused persons assaulted complainant Ram Raj and his cousin Chandra Bali. The first informant Ram Raj got fracture in his left hand. It was alleged in the First Information Report that the accused had blocked the way to police station on account of which the report could not be lodged immediately. The two injured Chandra Bali and Ram Raj got themselves medically examined on 8.1.76 at 1.30 p.m. and 1.15 p.m. respectively and after the medical examination, a report was lodged at P.S. Kotwali district Jaunpur on 8.1.76 at 2.10 p.m. After investigation, the accused were charge-sheeted and they were charged for the offences punishable under Sections 323/34 and 325/34, I.P.C. The trial court convicted Daulat revisionist under Section 325, I.P.C. and sentenced him to undergo one year R.I. All the four accused persons were convicted under Section 323/34, I.P.C. and were sentenced to undergo R.I. for six months each. Appeal filed by the accused persons was allowed by the appellate court and Judgment and order of the trial court was set aside and all the appellants were acquitted. The present revision has been filed against the Judgment and order of the appellate court acquitting the opposite parties.
(3.) THE judgment and order of the appellate court is challenged mainly on the grounds that a number of independent witnesses were examined by the prosecution and there was no cogent reason for disbelieving their testimony and the delay in lodging the First Information Report was fully explained. THE appellate court held that from the perusal of the medical examination report, it does not appear that the incident occurred at about 5.00 or 6.00 p.m. on 7.1.76. THE appellate court observed that the injuries had pus in them and according to the opinion of the Doctor, in extreme cold pus could not be found within 20 hours. In support of his finding, the learned Judge referred to the observation of Dr. J. P. Modi, in his Text book of Medical Jurisprudence and Toxicology, 1949 Ed. at page 221 wherein it was observed that pus appears in about 36 or 42 hours in a wound which has been dirty or which has not been properly treated. THEre does not appear any error on the part of the appellate court in arriving at the finding that the incident does not appear to have taken place on 7.1.76 at 5.00 p.m. The incident had allegedly occurred at 5.00 p.m. on 7.1.76 and the report was lodged on 8.1.76 at 2.10 p.m. The only reason given was that the accused persons had blocked the way to police station. The appellate court held that the explanation given by the complainant was not trust-worthy. The complainant could have reached police station within 20 minutes had he gone to the police station early in the morning. There does not appear any error in the finding of the appellate court. It is well-settled that while dealing with the case of acquittal, the revisional court should interfere in rare of the rarest cases where gross injustice is caused. Merely because a different view can be taken on the same facts, that cannot be a ground for setting aside the order of acquittal. In my view, the revision fails and is, accordingly, dismissed.;