Case Facts:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Revision No. 1018 of 2002 =========================================================== Madan Mahto @ Madan Singh Son of Janardan Singh resident of Village Baruna (Nikapur) P.S. Sahar Narainpur, District- Bhojpur at Ara. .... .... Petitioner/s Versus The State Of Bihar .... .... Opposite Party/s =========================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Jagarnath Prasad, Advocate. For the Opposite Party/s : Mrs. Indu Bala Pandey, A.P.P. =========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH ORAL JUDGMENT Date: 02-03-2012 Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J. Heard Mr. Jagarnath Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mrs. Indu Bala Pandey, learned A.P.P. for the State. 2. This revision has been filed by the petitioner Madan Mahto against the Judgment and Order dated 16.09.2002 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge-cum- P.O. (F.T.C.) IIIrd Arrah, Bhojpur in Sessions Trial No. 190/93 by which the petitioner has been convicted under [STATUTE] but inspite of sentence of imprisonment he has been released on execution of bond of Rs. 2,000/- with two sureties of the like amount each for maintaining peace and being of good behavior for a period of one year under Section 4 (1) of the Probation of Offender’s Act. 3. The petitioner and two others persons are Patna High Court CR. REV. No.1018 of 2002 dt.02-03-2012 2 / 4 2 accused in Sahar P.S. Case No. 105/1992 registered under [STATUTE] . The police upon investigation submitted chargesheet against the accused under all the Sections but charge was framed under [STATUTE] . 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the said order of conviction is totally erroneous both on facts as well as in law. He points out to the fact that the doctor who has examined the injured (informant) has not been brought before the Court as a witness to prove the injury report which has been done so by the advocate clerk and according to him this lacuna cannot be filled up and the same is fatal to the prosecution, since according to him it is now well settled that it is only the doctor who has examined the injured can testify how the injuries were inflicted and also the opinion about the cause of injury. Learned counsel further submits that in the F.I.R. as well as during the trial and the statement of the witnesses no overt act is attributed to the petitioner who is only said to have been present there with lathi and also exhorted the main assailants in causing injury to the informant. It is submitted that the I.O. has also not been examined which also weakens the case of the prosecution and the benefit should go to the accused, that is, the petitioner. Learned counsel has also drawn the attention of this Court to paragraph no. 8 of the judgment impugned in Patna High Court CR. REV. No.1018 of 2002 dt.02-03-2012 3 / 4 3 which the Court has categorically held that there is no evidence to show the nature of injury and instrument which has caused the injury and thus the petitioner was held not guilty under [STATUTE] . It is submitted that the Court then erroneously has opined that the accused persons can be held guilty of causing hurt to the informant and thus convicted the petitioner under [STATUTE] which is not justified in the facts and circumstances of the case. Learned counsel also submits that the petitioner has clean antecedent and is not involved in any other criminal case. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that in a case like the present where there is absolutely no legal evidence to convict him, still he has to undergo imprisonment for one month. 6. Learned A.P.P. on the other hand submits that at least it is proved that the informant suffered injury for which he has had to undergo treatment in the hospital for a long period and witnesses have also stated with regard to the accused, including the petitioner, of being party to such occurrence, the judgment impugned cannot be faulted. 7. Upon considering the facts and circumstances of the case, after being assisted on the basis of materials on record, the evidence adduced during trial and also after going though the judgment impugned, this Court is of the opinion Patna High Court CR. REV. No.1018 of 2002 dt.02-03-2012 4 / 4 4 that in the present case the prosecution has not been able to prove the case against the petitioner beyond all reasonable doubts. There is enough legal lacuna to acquit the petitioner which have been overlooked by the Court below. Just because the occurrence has occurred, will not justify the trial Court to convict the person for the same without there being enough cogent and justifiable reason as well as legal evidence available to do so. 8. In view of the aforesaid, the conviction of the petitioner cannot be sustained and is accordingly set aside. The petitioner stands acquitted of the charge against him relating to Sahar P.S. Case No. 105/1992 giving rise to Sessions Trial No. 190/1993. 9. This application accordingly, stands allowed. Patna High Court Dated 2nd March, 2012. Anand Kr./N.A.F.R. (Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J)

Applicable IPC Section: 323

Statute Text:
Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code. Voluntarily causing hurt. Whoever, except in the case provided for by section 334, voluntarily causes hurt, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both.