The High Court of Calcutta, while allowing a revision petition filed by the petitioner against the judgement of the Additional Sessions Judge vide which the order of conviction against the petitioners was upheld, held that when the injured person is medically treated after being assaulted, non-examination of the Medical Officer and failure to produce the treatment sheet in Court carries an adverse presumption against the prosecution.
Brief Facts:
The petitioners were convicted under the charge of Sections 147/148/341/323/324/504 of the Indian Penal Code. The convicts were sentenced to imprisonment on different counts with fine. For non-payment of the fine, they were directed to suffer a further period of imprisonment. The order of conviction and sentence was passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class. The convicts preferred an appeal before the learned Additional Sessions Judge. By a judgement dated 24th of September, 2018, the order of conviction and sentence was confirmed, and the appeal was dismissed. Being aggrieved by the decision of the Appellate Court, the petitioners have preferred the instant revision.
Contentions of the Petitioner:
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner submitted that the impugned judgement passed by the Appellate Court, confirming the judgement of the Trial Court, did not consider the case of the Appellant that there was no occasion to form any unlawful assembly by the accused persons and thereafter with the common object of such unlawful assembly, no act was committed within the meaning of “rioting”, being the penal provision under Sections 147 and 148 of the IPC.
Observations of the court:
The court noted that it is not possible to see as to whether other accused persons committed any offence at all or not. It is also not possible for him to state whether other accused persons assaulted his daughter or not because PW3 was unconscious at that point in time. There is absolutely no evidence that the petitioners had a common object to commit the offense of causing hurt to the informant.
The court observed that the mere fact that a person was present in the assembly when the offense of rioting was committed is not sufficient to show that he was a member of the unlawful assembly that committed the offense. To constitute an unlawful assembly, the common object of the assembly must be an immediate one or to be carried into effect forthwith. However, it is the duty of the prosecution to prove the common object of the accused persons. It is true that in order to bring home a charge under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code, medical evidence is not necessary. However, when the injured person is medically treated after being assaulted, non-examination of the Medical Officer and failure to produce the treatment sheet in Court carries an adverse presumption against the prosecution. Both the Courts below failed to consider the above-mentioned aspect.
The decision of the Court:
The Calcutta High Court, allowing the revision petition, held that the prosecution failed to bring home the charge against the petitioners beyond all shadows of reasonable doubt.
Case Title: Agamlal Yadav & Ors. v. The State Of Bihar
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Bibek Chaudhuri
Case No.: CRIMINAL REVISION No.50 of 2019
Advocate for the Petitioner: Mr. Gopal Kumar Jha
Advocate for the Respondent: Mr. Sanjay Kumar Sharma
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
