YADAV, J. - (1.) THE instant revision is filed by revisionist-convict Bhanwar Singh under Sec. 397 read with Sec. 401, Cr. P. C. against the judgement dated 14. 8. 85 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Bhilwara in sessions case No. 8 of 1984 convicting and sentencing him for the offence under Sec. 352, IPC and to pay a fine of Rs. 100/- in default of payment of fine to undergo 15 days simple imprisonment and also convicting and sentencing him for the offence under sec. 341,ipc and to pay a efinr of Rs. 100/-, in default of payment of fine to undergo 15 days, simple imprisonment.
(2.) IT is held by the learned Sessions Judge that both the substantive sentences are to run consecutively. According to the prosecution story, while complainant Basant Kumar Agarwal, Assistant Electrical Engineer of Gulabpura Spinning Mills was returning on his cycle on 17. 11. 1983 after finishing his duty at about 6 p. m. when he was passing through Sadar Bazar, Gulabpura and reached near Shyam Medical Store, in front of B. M. S. Office, the accused-revisionist Bhanwar Singh, who was also an employee of Gulabpura Spinning Mills suddenly started abusing and gave farsa blow on his person but latter saved himself by moving his body. He fell down from his cycle and again revisionist Bhanwar Singh gave a farsa blow which he saved himself by moving his neck. The motive of the incident disclosed in the first information report (Ex. P/6) is that services of the real brother of accused Bhanwar Singh were terminated due to disciplinary action against his brother which annoyed him and motivated him to commit the said crime. It is also alleged in the first information report (Ex. P/6) that the incident was witnessed by one Govind Sindhi. A written F. I. R. was lodged of the incident on the very same day at about 6. 30 p. m. with the police station,gulabpura, whereupon a case under Sec. 307/341, IPC was registered and investigation commenced. After investigation, a charge-sheet under Sec. 307/341, IPC was submitted by the police and eventually the case was committed to the court of Sessions Judge, Bhilwara for trial. The learned Sessions Judge framed the charges under Sec. 307 IPC and in alternative, charges under Sec. 352 and 341 IPC were also framed against the revisionist Bhanwar Singh. The revisionist pleaded not guilty to the aforesaid charges framed against him and claimed trial. During trial, the prosecution examined six witneses namely;pw 1 Anand Mathur, PW 2 Govind Sindhi, PW 3 Puranmal, PW 4 Ram Prasad, PW 5 Basant Kumar Agarwal (complainant) & PW 6 Shanker Singh. In support of the prosecution story, six documents were produced from Ex. P/1 to Ex. P/6. Ex. P/1 is inspection memo. Ex. p/2 is site plan. Ex. p/3 is recovery memo of cycle. Ex. P/4 is the statement of Govind Sindhi recorded by the Investigating Officer. Ex. P/5 is written report by complainant Basant Kumar Agarwal (PW 5) on the basis of which, F. I. R. was registered at the police station, which is marked as Ex. p/6.
(3.) IN the statement under Sec. 313, Cr. P. C, the revisionist has stated that he was active member of B. M. S. Union while the first informant Basant Kumar Agarwal in collusion of management was helping another rival union I. N. T. U. C. According to the petitioner, he is falsely implicated in the case due to rivalry between two unions. After hearing, learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for the revisionist, the learned Sessions Judge came to the conclusion that the prosecution failed to establish the offence under Sec. 307, IPC against the revisionist beyond doubt, hence acquitted him under Sec. 307, IPC but on the same appreciation of evidence convicted him under Sec. 352 and 341, IPC. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor for the State and gone through the oral and documentary evidence on record including the judgement given by the learned Sessions Judge convicting and sentencing the revisionist under Sec. 352 and 341, IPC. ;