JASRAJ CHOPRA, J. - (1.) BY this petition under s. 482 Cr P. C. , the accused petitioner Bhuria has challenged the order of this Court dated May 23, 1989 passed in S. B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 46 of 1981 whereby the conviction of the accused-petitioner Bhuria for the offence under s. 326 IPC was maintained.
(2.) THE facts of the case briefly stated are that a complaint was filed at PS. Sadri on 18. 3. 1974 at about 11. 30 PM by one Pokar against 13 persons. ' THE police, after investigation, challaned the case against three of them but the Court took cognizance against all the 13 persons. However, after trial, the persons against whom the cognizance was taken by the court were acquitted but the three persons petitioner and two other persons) against whom challan was filed by the Police were held guilty. On appeal, the conviction of other two persons was set aside but the conviction of accused-petitioner Bhuria for the offence under S. 326 IPC was maintained and his sentence of four years' rigorous imprisonment together with a fine of Rs. 1000/- was reduced to one year's rigorous imprisonment together with a fine of Rs. 500/ -. This was a case where the accused amputated the hand of the complainant from near his wrist joint on account of long standing enmity. Actually, it is alleged that complainant Pokar tried to commit rape with the wife of accused Khetia. A case was challaned against him but after trial, he was acquitted and, therefore, in order to teach a lesson to com-plainant Pokar, the accused-persons have availed him when Pokar was going to his house after working in the field. He was attacked ' in the way. It is alleged from the side of the accused that initially, Pokar caught hold of the neck of Khetia and when he tried to strangulate his neck, accused Bhuria snatched his axe from him and inflicted this injury. This story has been totally disbelieved by the learned lower courts According to the learned lower courts, if there were three persons, Pokar could not have attacked them. Moreover, it was accused party which was having a grouse against him because he was acquitted of the offence of attempt to commit rape with the wife of accused Khetia. Rather, it was found by the learned lower courts that it was a pre-meditated attack THE scope of s. 482 Cr. P. C. is very limited. Unless grave and substantial injustice has been caused, the impugned order cannot be interfered by this Court in exercise of its extraordinary powers under s. 482 Cr. P. C. Mr. M. C. Bhoot, the learned counsel appearing for the accused-petitioner has submitted that the occurrence took place on 18. 3. 1974; that the accused petitioner has remained in custody for about 7 months and, therefore, he should not be sent back behind the bars after about 15 long years. In this respect, he has placed reliance on a decision of this Court in Sunderdass V. The State of Rajasthan (1), wherein the accused-persons were held guilty of the offences under ss 148, 147, 323 and 324 IPC. The occurrence took place in the year 1972 and, therefore, while disposing of the appeal in the year 1979, this Court felt that if the sentence of imprisonment is maintained against the petitioners they would lose their Govt. jobs and, therefore, the accused-persons were given the benefit of Probation of Offenders Act. This Court observed that the petitioners have approached this Court with an unusual request. But the circumstances are also unusual. However, taking into consideration, the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court ordered that the ends of justice would be served, if the sentence of imprisonment imposed on the petitioners is set aside and they are given the benefit of the Probation of Offenders Act That was a case of simple injury and. both the accused-petitioners were Govt. Servants and, therefore, it was submitted that if the sentence of imprisonment is maintained, they would lose there jobs and their families will have to suffer grave economic hardship. This is not the case here. It is a case of pre-meditated attack where injuries have been inflicted in order to take revenge against Pokar on account of the fact that he has been acquitted of the offence of attempt to commit rape with the wife of accused Khetia. The injury caused is amputation of hand. The complainant Pokar will have to live without his hand below the wrist joint throughout his life. In these facts and circumstances of this case, the sentence imposed against the accused-petitioner Bhuria appears to be too mild. When complainant Pokar has been acquitted of the offence of attempt to commit rape with the wife of accused Khetia, the accused-persons have no right to punish him for an act of which he has not been found guilty after trial and, therefore, Sunderdass's case (supra) has no application to the facts of the present case. It is no body's case that accused-petitioner Bhuria is a Government servant and if his sentence is maintained, he will lose his Govt. job Mr. M. C. Bhoot, the learned counsel appearing for the accused-petitioner has next contended that in this case, the FIR has been held to be a fabricated document. In this respect, he has placed reliance on certain observations of their lordships of the Supreme Court in Marudanal Augusti V. State of Kerala (2 ). "the High Court seems to have over looked the fact that the entire fabric of the prosecution case would collapse if the FIR is held to be fabricated or brought into existence long after the occurrence and any member of witnesses could be added without there being anything to check the authenticity of their evidence. " "this, therefore, completely knocks the bottom out of the prosecution case regarding the circumstances in which the FIR was lodged. " This is not the case of that type. That was a case where the occurrence took place in the night intervening 23. 6. 71 and 24. 6. 71 and the FIR was lodged on 25. 6 71. The medical examination was also conducted on 25,6. 71 and the injuries were held to be simple one and fresh and, therefore, it was held that this completely knocks the bottom out of the prosecution case regarding the circumstances in which the FIR was lodged. Here, the FIR has been lodged soon after the* occurrence. It is true that the complaint has been made against 13 persons but after investigation, the case was challaned against only three persons but the Court took cognizance against all the 13 persons. However, after trial, the learn-ed lower court held the three persons against whom initially challan was filed guilty of certain offences and on appeal, two of them have been acquitted. It does not mean that the FIR is a fabricated document. In India, we do not follow the principle that falsus in Uno is falsus in omnibus. The FIR has been filed against 13 persons but ultimately, only one of them has been convicted. It does not mean that in this manner it may be treated as wrong in its entirety more over it is a case where if has not been held that the FIR is a fictituous document coming into existence much after the occurrence. Rather, certain contents of the FIR have not been believed and that does not make it a fabricated or fictituous document coming into existence much after the occurrence and, therefore, this authority has no application to the facts and circumstances of this case. Mr. Bhoot next contended that the circumstance in which the injury has been caused has not been taken into consideration alongwith the fact that it is a very old case. According to him, the injury was caused at the time when the complainant Pokar forcibly tried to enter into the house of accused-party. This argument is against the record. The occurrence took place in the way and not near the house of the accused party and the motive for the occurrence is the acquittal of complainant Pokar of the offence of attempt to commit rape with accused Khetia's wife and, therefore, this argument has no force This is the case where interference has not been made even in revision and so, I am disinclined to interfere with the order of sentence passed against the accused-petitioner in exercise of the extra-ordinary powers of this Court vested in it under s. 482 Cr. P. C. In the result, I find no force in this petition and it is hereby dismissed. .;