Judgment:
R.P. Awasthy, J.
1. It is a Revision Petition against holding of the accused/appellant guilty for committing offences punishable under sections 324 and 326 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to rigorous imprisonment for six months and one year respectively.
2. Prosecution case is that on 13-1-1984, marriage ceremony of Sashikant (PW/5) was going to be convened at village Ratamati, where he resides. Accused Manohari also used to reside in village Ratamati, but had shifted from the said village to Betul Bazar about 10 or 12 years prior to the date of incident. However, the accused had not sold his house situated at village Ratamati and he used to occasionally visit the said village where he once used to reside. On 13-1-1984, also the accused had come to village Ratamati.
3. Kundan (PW/2), Kishorilal (PW/3), Babulal (PW/6) and accused Manohari had gathered in the house of Babulal (PW/6) for gambling there. The house of Babulal (PW/6) is near the house of Sashikant (PW/5). There Kundan and Babulal appear to have consumed some liquor. Kundan was telling the accused that they should not gamble in the house of Babulal because if the police would come to village, they would be apprehended. However, the accused insisted that they would gamble in the house of Babulal (PW/6) only. On account of it, a quarrel took place between Kundan on one hand and the accused/appellant on the other. The accused filthily abusing Kundan (PW/2), made an attack on him and chased him. Kundan (PW/2) tried to run away and escape. However, the accused caught hold of Kundan and threw him on the ground where rubbish of the house of Babulal was being thrown. Thereafter, the accused voluntarily caused hurt by means of his teeth on the left eye-brow of Kundan.
4. On an injury thus being caused to Kundan, he started crying and raising an alarm, on hearing which Kishorilal (PW/3) came there and separated the accused from Kundan (PW/2). Kundan went to his house.
5. On hearing the shouts made by Kundan, Ozha (PW/1) went towards the house of Babulal. While he was proceeding towards the house of Babulal, he found that Kundan was going from the side of the house of Babulal and was saying that Manohari had bitten him. On proceeding further, Ozha met Manohari and asked him as to why he always quarrelled with people. Thereupon, the accused asked Ozha as to why he was doing the job of canvassing for others. Thereafter, Manohari grappled with Ozha and threw him on the ground near the fenced yard of the house of Mehraya Kotwar. After throwing him on the ground, the accused/appellant sat on the chest of Ozha and severed his lower lip by cutting it by means of his teeth.
6. Sashikant (PW/5), who was sitting in his house as a bridegroom, had been witnessing these incidents and after Manohari caused injury on the lower lip of Ozha, he came to the said place. After thus causing the said injury, the accused fled away from the said place. Sashikant (PW/5) brought Ozha to his house. Tezabai (PW/4) wife of Ozha found that the injury caused on the lower lip of Ozha was bleeding. One piece of the lower lip was missing, accused/appellant had come there and was saying that he had cut the lip of Ozha in such a manner that even the missing part of the said lip could not be found.
7. On the next date, Ozha went to police station, Jhallar, where he lodged first information report (Ex.P/1). Ozha and Kundan were sent for medical examination where they were medically examined, and doctor I. P. Verma found injuries on the persons of Ozha and Kundan, as have been described above. Dr. Verma opined that the said injuries could have been caused by tooth bite. However, Dr. Verma could not be or has not been examined in the present case. Map (Ex.P/5) was prepared by the Investigating Officer.
8. After completion of investigation, the accused was held guilty and sentenced as detailed above.
9. The accused filed an appeal against the said finding and sentence of holding him guilty and sentencing him as detailed above in the Court of Sessions Judge. The learned Sessions Judge disallowed the said appeal so far as it related to the finding of holding him guilty, but reduced the quantum of sentences to the sentence already referred in Para No. 1 of this Judgment.
10. It has been argued for the accused/appellant/petitioner that the doctor has not been examined in the present case and therefore, the nature of injuries sustained by Ozha and Kundan could not be established. It has further to be seen that Kundan (PW/2) did not see any incident which allegedly took place between the accused and Ozha. Kishorilal (PW/3) also did not see the incident which took place between Ozha and the accused. Sashikant (PW/5) did not himself see that accused had bitten Kundan and Ozha and he had only seen the injury which was caused to Ozha. Thus, according to the learned counsel for the accused/appellant/petitioner, there is no corroboration of the version given by Kundan and Ozha by any independent and reliable evidence.
11. In any case, the incident had taken place on 13-1-1984 and therefore, about 12 years have elapsed after the date of the incident. The accused/appellant/petitioner has remained under custody for some period. Therefore, the accused may be sentenced to imprisonment for the period already undergone. It has further been pointed out that the accused is a first offender and no bad antecedents have been alleged against him.
12. In reply, the finding given and sentence awarded by the learned Sessions Judge is fully supported by the learned Government Advocate.
13. It is wrong to say that the testimony given by Kundan and Ozha is not corroborated by the testimony given by other witnesses examined in the case. Corroboration does not mean that the other witnesses depose each and every particular fact which has been deposed by the witnesses whose testimony is corroborated by the said other witnesses. Corroboration means only this much that the statement of the witness who corroborates the testimony given by the other witnesses should be such that it should supply assurance and support regarding the credibility of the statement given by such witness whose testimony is corroborated by the statement given by such a witness. V.S. Reddy v. State of Hyderabad, AIR 1956 SC 379.
14. Now in the present case, the testimony given by Kundan (PW/2) is fully corroborated by the testimony given by Kishorilal (PW/3), Sashikant (PW/5) and Babulal (PW/6). The said testimony further stands supported by the testimony given by Ozha. In turn, the testimony given by Ozha, who is a wholly reliable witness is further corroborated by the contents of the first information report (Ex.P/1).
15. There is absolutely no reason as to why Ozha, Kundan (PW/2), Kishorilal (PW/3), Tejabai (PW/4), Sashikant (PW/5) and Babulal (PW/6) would leave aside the real culprit, who voluntarily caused hurt by means of tooth bite on the persons of Kundan and Ozha and would falsely implicate the present accused. Thus, there is no reason to disbelieve the said wholly reliable and overwhelming evidence available on record in the present case.
16. I fully agree that where there is overwhelming, clear and cogent evidence regarding the criminal act committed by an accused, it cannot be discarded merely because, the doctor could not be examined in that particular case. It is no doubt true that it is always desirable that the doctor who medically examined the victims should be examined as a witness in the case. But at times there are difficulties in producing the said witness who medically examined the victim of the incident. Therefore, it cannot be said as a thumb rule whenever a doctor is not examined in any case, the prosecution version should be dubbed as unreliable and should be discarded. It has also to be borne in mind that in the present case, the prosecution witnesses have exercised restraint and have not deposed anything which they had not seen. This adds to their credibility, rather the making them subject of criticism or being considered as unreliable.
17. It has also to be borne in mind that it is a Revision Petition, in which the jurisdiction of Revisional Court is rather limited.
18. Consequently, the finding of holding the accused/appellant/petitioner guilty for committing offences punishable under sections 324 and 326 of the Indian Penal Code are maintained.
19. Nevertheless, looking to the fact that about twelve years have elapsed after the date of the incident it is being considered that it would not serve any useful purpose by sending the accused/appellant/petitioner again to jail. Consequently, it is ordered that the accused/petitioner/appellant stands sentenced to imprisonment for the period, which he has already undergone or during which he has remained under custody; and shall pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- and 3,000/- for committing offences punishable under sections 324 and 326 of the Indian Penal Code respectively, or in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months and nine months respectively.
20. In case, the amount of fine is paid by the accused or is recovered from him, the entire amount of fine of Rs. 1,000/- be paid by way of compensation to Kundan (PW/2) and the amount of fine of Rs. 3,000/- be paid by way of compensation to Ozha (PW/1).
21. Thus, but for reducing the quantum of sentence as has been detailed above, the present Revision Petition fails and is disallowed.