CRLREV No.98 of 2002 04.04.2016 This criminal revision is directed against the judgment dated 07.12.2001 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Keonjhar in Criminal Appeal No.40 of 1995 confirming the judgment dat ed 13.06.1995 passed by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Anandapur in S.T. No.6/3 of 1995 convicting the present petitioners under Sections 447/325/307/34 of I.P.C. and sentencing eac h of them to undergo R.I. for two months, two years and four years respectively and also to pa y a fine of Rs.500/- on each count under Sections 325 and 307 of I.P.C., in default, to underg o R.I. for two months on each such count. It has further been directed vide the impugned judgm ents that the substantive sentences shall run concurrently subject to the rule of set off unde r Section 428 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the fine amount, if realized, shall be pai d to the injured persons as compensation. 2. Prosecution case, in brief, is that on 17.11.1993 at 7.30 a.m., while the informant (P .W.1), his father (P.W.3) and maternal uncle (P.W.4) were engaged in harvesting paddy crop gro wn by them over the land purchased by P.W.3, the petitioners, who are inter-related as brother s, being armed with lathis trespassed into the said land (hereinafter referred to as the case land), picked-up quarrel with the informant-party and indiscriminately assaulted the P.Ws.1, 3 and 4 by means of lathis causing multiple bodily injuries to them including fracture injuries , and on hearing the shout of the injured persons, when the neighbouring people, namely, P.Ws. 5 to 7 rushed to the spot, the petitioner-assailants fled away. On the same date at 10 a.m., t he P.W.1 lodged a written report of the incident with the police giving rise to registration o f a case and investigation into the incident. In course of investigation, the P.Ws.1, 3 and 4 were medically examined on police requisition, and on completion of investigation, the petitio ners were charge-sheeted under Sections 447/325/307/34 of I.P.C. The case upon being committed by the learned S.D.J.M., Anandapur to the Court of Session was transferred to the Court of th e learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Anandapur, and as the petitioners pleaded not guilty to th e aforesaid charges, trial was held in the Court of the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Anan dapur. 3. During trial, prosecution examined eleven witnesses in toto and produced documentary e vidence vide Exts.1 to 12 including the injury reports and X-ray reports marked as Exts.6 to 1 1. The bloodstain apparels of the injured persons and the relevant X-ray plates in respect of the injuries were also produced vide M.Os.I to VIII during the trial. The petitioners, however , did not adduce any evidence in defence during the trial. The learned trial court upon discus sion of evidence held the prosecution to have been able to bring home all the charges against the petitioners and passed the impugned judgment of conviction with order of sentence of diffe rent terms, as indicated earlier. The petitioners challenged the judgment and order of the tri al court in Criminal Appeal No.40 of 1995 before the learned Sessions Judge, Keonjhar who upon re-assessment of the materials on record concurred with the findings and conclusion arrived a t by the learned trial court and maintained the conviction of the petitioners and confirmed th e order of sentence passed against them. Hence, the present criminal revision challenging the legality and propriety of the judgments of the learned Courts below. 4. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners as well as the learned counsel appearing for the State. 5. It is contended, inter-alia, by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the learn ed Courts below committed gross illegality while evaluating the prosecution evidence, inasmuch as the doubtful features inherent with the prosecution set up have not been taken note of. Ac cording to him, the delay in sending the F.I.R. to the Magistrate, discrepancy in identificati on of case land, non-seizure of the alleged weapons of offence, major contradictions and discr epancies in the oral evidence, previous enmity between both the sides etc. are the doubtful fe atures which render the prosecution a grave suspect. Citing some authoritative pronouncements, the learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that while evaluating the prosecuti on evidence and dealing with the charges, particularly the charge under Section 307 of I.P.C. against the petitioners, the learned Courts below remained oblivious of the doctrine of mens r ea. It is the ultimate argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the impugned j udgments being not sustainable in law are liable to be set-aside. 6. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the State submitted that the evid ence of the injured persons corroborated by independent witnesses having remained unshaken and the medical evidence produced by the prosecution having lent ample support and assurance on t he factum of injury, non-production of weapons of offence cannot be taken as a reason to suspe ct the probative value of the prosecution case. His further submission is that the learned app ellate Court having upheld the judgment of the trial court upon independent appreciation of th e materials on record, there is no scope for this Court to interfere with the same in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. 7. I have gone through the impugned judgments vis--vis the evidence produced by the prose cution during the trial. Every offence under the Indian Penal Code virtually imports the idea of criminal inten t or mens rea in some form or other. Only limited and exceptional classes of offence can be co mmitted without a guilty mind. The definitions of different offences under the Indian Penal Co de themselves contain expressly or by implication the proposition as to the state of mind. To put it in other words, mens rea will mean one thing or another according to the particular off ence, expressed in the terms, such as, intentionally, voluntarily, knowingly, dishonestly or f raudulently or the like. Only limited and exceptional classes of offence can be committed with out a guilty mind and presumably in those cases, the Legislature has intentionally omitted to prescribe a particular mental condition. 8. Having gone through the oral evidence produced by the prosecution during the trial, wh at I find, not only the injured witnesses (P.Ws.1, 3 and 4) are corroborative of one another, but also the P.Ws.5 to 7 afforded ample independent corroboration to them and the medical evid ence on record lent requisite assurance to the prosecution on the factum of assault and injuri es. Stray contradictions and discrepancies as pointed out in the oral evidence, do not appear to be so material in nature as to impeach the credibility of the injured witnesses or to suspe ct the probative value of the prosecution set up. Nothing has been elicited from the independe nt witnesses to infer their any hostile animus towards the petitioners or their any interested ness to extend any undue support to the victim-party. Their presence in the vicinity of the s pot appears to be natural inasmuch as there is nothing to controvert that they have got their land in the neighbourhood of the case land. 9. A perusal of the evidence of the Medical Officers, namely, P.Ws.9 and 10, coupled with their written opinions admitted into evidence vide Exts.6 to 11 would show that the P.W.1 rec eived nine injuries which were simple in nature and P.Ws.3 and 4 received three injuries inclu ding one of grievous nature each. The P.W.3 had received a fracture injury on his left arm hum orous and P.W.4 received fracture on his left palm. As per medical opinion, all those injuries were possible by hard and blunt weapon. 10. Although the F.I.R. was promptly lodged at the Police Station on the very date of the incident, i.e., 17.11.1993, admittedly the same was sent by police to the Magistrate on 19.11. 1993. The delay in transmission of the F.I.R., however, appears to be of no consequence inasmu ch as there is nothing from the side of the defence either through cross-examination of the In vestigating Officer or the informant or otherwise that the original F.I.R. was tampered with o r there was any improvement in the prosecution story resulting in delay in despatch of the F.I .R. vide Ext.1 to the Magistrate. So far as the identification of the case land is concerned, although in the F.I.R. it was mentioned that the incident occurred over Plot No.773, while bei ng in the witness box, the informant clarified that it was Plot No.772, locally known as Pachh ikote Bahali under Khata No.45 at village- Ramchandrapur. The Khatian vide Ext.2 was also prod uced during the trial which shows the said plot being recorded in the name of the father of th e informant. That apart, as per the oral evidence on record, the incident took place on the ve ry land which was in cultivating possession of the informant. The learned Courts below appear to have scrutinized the prosecution evidence in right perspective leading to the concurrent fi nding that all the petitioners in furtherance of their common intention trespassed into the la nd in possession of the informant-party and inflicted injuries to P.Ws.1, 3 and 4 including gr ievous hurt, by means of lathis which are hard and blunt objects. The conviction of the petiti oners under Sections 447/325/34 of I.P.C. as concurrently recorded by the Courts below is, the refore, hereby maintained. But, so far as the conviction of the petitioners under Section 307/ 34 of I.P.C. is concerned, I am unable to endorse the findings of the Courts below for the rea sons to follow. 11. To reiterate, it has been proved by the prosecution that the petitioners used lathis i n course of the assault and while the P.Ws.3 and 4 received three injuries including one griev ous injury each, the P.W.1 received multiple simple injuries on different parts of his body. F or the purpose of Section 307 of I.P.C., the prosecution is required to prove that the accused did any act with such guilty intention or knowledge and in such circumstances that but for so me intervening act, the act of the accused would have amounted to murder in the normal course of events. The requisite intention is to be gathered from the available circumstances and not merely from the consequences that ensue. The nature of the weapon used, the manner in which it was used, motive for the crime, severity of the blows, and the part of the body where the inj uries were inflicted, are some of the factors which may be taken into consideration to determi ne the intention. According to the learned Sessions Judge, Keonjhar, the petitioners attempted to commit the murder of P.W.1, inasmuch as they inflicted multiple injuries to him including the injury Nos.(iii), (iv) and (v) vide Ext.6 which were on his forehead. To reiterate, not on ly the nature, number or location of injuries but also there are several other factors which a re to be taken into consideration while dealing with a question as to whether the act of the a ssailants was associated with the requisite intention or knowledge to commit murder of the vic tim, and it was only for the intervening circumstances which foiled the attempt to commit the murder. In the present case, no such circumstance appears to have intervened in course of the assault which obstructed or prevented the petitioners from continuing with the assault. A care ful scrutiny of the evidence of the independent witnesses vis--vis the evidence of the injured persons would show that by the time the independent witnesses arrived at the spot, the assaul t was already over. The nature of weapon used and the nature, number and location of the injur ies sustained by the P.W.1 also do not suggest any intention with the petitioners to commit mu rder of the P.W.1. As it further appears, the P.W.1 did not loss his sense due to the assault and he personally about two and half hours after the incident went to the Police Station and l odged the F.I.R. 12. Having carefully evaluated the prosecution evidence, I am of the ultimate view that th e charge under Section 307 of I.P.C. against the petitioners could not be established by the p rosecution beyond reasonable doubt. Taking note of the injuries sustained by P.W.1, the petiti oners are found to have voluntarily caused simple hurt to him, and accordingly, conviction of the petitioners under Section 307/34 of I.P.C. is modified to one under Section 323/34 of I.P. C. and on this count, all the petitioners are sentenced to undergo R.I. for one month each, an d the said sentence shall run concurrently with the substantive sentences under Sections 447/3 25/34 of I.P.C., in terms of the direction vide infra. To be more clear, the petitioners have already undergone imprisonment for more than one month. So far as the concurrent order of sent ence of the petitioners under Sections 447/325/34 of I.P.C. is concerned, as I notice, the inc ident took place way back in the year 1993 and the petitioner- Chintamani Das remained in pre- conviction detention from 19.11.1993 to 10.12.1993 and post-conviction detention from 13.06.19 95 to 07.07.1995, and the other two petitioners also remained in pre-conviction detention from 24.11.1993 to 10.12.1993 and post-conviction detention from 13.06.1995 to 07.07.1995. 13. Taking into consideration the above facts, so also other mitigating circumstances depi cted from record and in view of the discussion made hereinbefore, the order of sentence is mod ified to the extent that substantive sentence against the petitioners for their conviction und er Sections 447/325/34 of I.P.C. is reduced to the period already undergone by them. At the sa me time, it is ordered that the petitioners shall pay a fine of Rs.2000/- each under Sections 325/34 of I.P.C. and the entire fine amount after being realized shall be paid to the injured persons, namely, P.Ws.1, 3 and 4 in equal proportion towards compensation. 14. This Criminal revision is disposed of accordingly. L.C.Rs. received along with a copy of this order be sent back forthwith. Issue urgent certified copy as per rules. . S.Pujahari, J. 2