Allahabad High Court
Arvind Kumar Verma vs State Of U.P. on 19 December, 2022
Bench: Sameer Jain
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 89
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 2040 of 2022
Revisionist :- Arvind Kumar Verma
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Revisionist :- Arvind Singh,Amaresh Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Sameer Jain,J.
Heard Sri Arvind Singh, learned counsel for the revisionist and Sri Suresh Bahadur Singh, learned AGA for the State.
The instant revision has been filed against the judgment and order dated 06.07.2012 passed by CJM, Varanasi in Case No. 655 of 2010, under Section 323 IPC and judgments order dated 05.04.2022 passed by Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge PC Act in Criminal Appeal No. 104 of 2012.
Learned counsel for the revisionist submitted that opposite party no.2 implicated the revisionist in the present matter on the basis of false allegation. He lodged NCR in the present matter under Sections 323, 504 IPC, in which after order under section 155 (2) Cr.P.C. investigation was conducted and after investigation charge-sheet was submitted under Sections 323, 504 IPC against the revisionist and two others and during trial opposite party no.2, injured of the case has been examined as PW-1 and although he in his testimony supported the version of the NCR and stated that revisionist along with others made assault and due to the assault made by them he sustained injuries but when PW-4, Dr. Arvind Kumar was examined before trial court then he stated that the injuries which were alleged to have been sustained by opposite party no.2 can also sustained by mere falling and further from the perusal of the statement of PW-4 Dr. Arvind Kumar it appears that he did not examine the injured and injured was examined by Dr. A.K. Singh but he has not been examined by trial court but in spite of that trial court convicted the revisionist along with other co-accused persons under Section 323 IPC and awarded one year R.I. and fine of Rs. 1,000/-. He next submitted that while passing the conviction order dated 06.07.2012 trial court release the revisionist on probation. He further submitted that against the conviction order dated 06.07.2012 revisionist preferred criminal appeal before sessions judge but on 05.04.2022 appeal filed by the revisionist was dismissed and appellate court approved the conviction order dated 06.07.2012 passed by the trial court.
Learned counsel for the revisionist submitted that both the orders dated 06.07.2012 passed by the trial court and judgment and order dated 05.04.2022 passed by the appellate court are illegal as both the courts below failed to properly appreciate the evidence on record and did not consider the material contradiction and omissions in the prosecution evidence and both the courts below failed to consider the fact that although as per allegation due to the assault made by the revisionist and others, opposite party no.2 sustained injuries but the doctor who examined him did not examine by the trial court and another doctor who approved the injury report of the injured specifically stated that injury can also be sustained by mere falling on the turf. He next submitted that in the statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. revisionist specifically stated the relationship of revisionist and opposite party no.2 are not cordial and their terms are highly inimical and only due to this reason he was falsely implicated by opposite party no.2, therefore, both the impugned orders are liable to be set aside.
Per contra, learned AGA submitted that the instant revision has been preferred by the revisionist against the conviction order and scope of revision is very limited and as both the courts below have already convicted the revisionist, therefore, finding of facts cannot be disturbed by this Court in revisional jurisdiction. He further submitted that opposite party no.2 is one of the injured witness and he specifically stated in his testimony that revisionist and two others made assault and due to the assault he sustained injuries which has been duly approved by PW-4, therefore, there is no illegality in the impugned order and Dr. Arvind Kumar (PW-4) did not state that injury sustained to opposite party no.2 could not be sustained by assault rather he only stated that it could also be sustained by falling, therefore, doctor did not rule out that due to assault made by revisionist, injuries sustained to opposite party no.2 could not sustained and even on the basis of statement of PW-4, the doctor no benefit can be extended to the revisionist, therefore, there is no illegality in the impugned order and instant revision is liable to be dismissed.
I have heard both the parties and perused the record of the case.
The instant revision has been preferred by the revisionist against the judgment and order dated 06.07.2012 passed by the trial court and judgment and order dated 05.04.2022 passed by the appellate court.
From the record, it appears that on 06.07.2012 trial court convicted the revisionist under Section 323 IPC and awarded him one year imprisonment with fine of Rs. 1,000/- and released him on probation and when revisionist preferred criminal appeal before the session judge then his appeal was dismissed vide judgment and order dated 05.04.2022, therefore, instant revision has been preferred against the conviction orders passed against the revisionist.
The law is settled that in revision finding of facts cannot be disturbed and no good ground could be shown by the revisionist on the basis of which order of the conviction can be interfered by this Court in revisional jurisdiction.
From the perusal of the record, it appears that opposite party no.2 is informant of the case and he is one of the injured and he stated that revisionist and two others made assault and due to the assault made by them, he sustained injuries and his injury report is also on record, which was duly approved by PW-4, Dr. Arvind Kumar. Although, from the perusal of the testimony of PW-4, Dr. Arvind Kumar, it appears that he is not the doctor, who examined opposite party no.2 and opposite party no.2 was examined by Dr. A.K. Singh, who is although not examined by the trial court but injury report prepared by Dr. A.K. Singh has been duly proved by PW-4 and he specifically stated in his testimony that he recognized the handwriting of Dr. A.K.Singh and he stated that injury report of opposite party no.2 was prepared by Dr. A.K. Singh and during trial no question was asked from PW-4 with regard to genuineness of the injury report prepared by Dr. A.K. Singh.
Further, from the perusal of the statement of PW-4 it appears that he stated that injury sustained by opposite party no.2 can also be sustained due to fall but PW-4 did not rule out the possibility that due to assault made by the revisionist it could not be sustained, therefore, from the record it appears that prosecution has successfully proved his case against the revisionist and as per testimony of PW-1, the injured and doctor it has been proved that revisionist along with two other persons made assault and due to assault opposite party no.2 sustained injuries, therefore, I find no illegality in the impugned judgment and orders passed by the trial court as well as appellate court, therefore, instant revision being devoid of merits is hereby dismissed.
Order Date :- 19.12.2022
AK Pandey
