K.B. Panda, J.
1. Both the petitioners were Initially convicted under Section 324 I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 3 (three) months and to pay a fine of Rs. 100/- with defaulting sentence. Further, petitioner Chaitan had been convicted under Section 325, I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo 3 months R.I. and to pay a fine of Rs. 100/-. On appeal the convictions have been maintained but the sentences modified occasioning this revision.
2. In brief, the prosecution case is thus:
On 7-12-73 at about 10 a.m. the informant (P.W. 1) was collecting kachada in his land. His brother Bhagaban Rout (P. W. 3) and informant (P. W. 1) and Syamsundar (P. W. 4) and Balaram (P. W. 2) were carrying kachada to their house. At that time these two petitioners appeared at the spot and assaulted the complainant's party on account of the previous grudge. Petitioner Balakrushna Bhuyan dealt two lathi blows on the informant who fell down and raised a hue and cry that he was dying. At this, his nephew Balaram (P. W. 2) came to his rescue. So, petitioner Chaitan Bhuyan dealt a lathi blow on the left hand of Balaram causing a fracture. At that time, informant's younger brother Bhagaban (P. W. 3) and Syamsundar (P. W. 4) also came to the spot. The petitioners assaulted them with a bhali at their paling resulting in bleeding injuries. This was witnessed by Durga Charan Naik (P. W. 6) and Dhasarathi Rout (P. W. 5). As Balaram was severely injured, he was removed to Cuttack Medical Hospital for treatment and his hand was X-rayed and he remained there for 2 months as an indoor patient. The informant lodged information on 13-12-73 at Dharmashala Police Station resulting in the charge-sheet of the two petitioners and their conviction as aforesaid.
3. The defence was a bare denial of the occurrence which is not consistent inasmuch as the next day a counter case was started which finally resulted in acquittal of the accused P. Ws.
4. The prosecution examined 9 witnesses and defence 2. Out of P. Ws, P. W. 1 is the informant, P. Ws 2, 3, 4 are the three injured, P. Ws. 5 and 6 are the two independent witnesses to the occurrence, P. Ws. 7 and 8 are two Doctors who examined the injured and P.W. 9 is the I. O. Out of the two D. Ws., D. W. 1 is a Private Practitioner who gave a certificate regarding injuries on petitioner-Chaitan (Ext. A). He has stated that the injuries on the person of Chaitan are simple in nature and might have been caused by blunt weapon. In the cross-examination he admitted that they can be by fall and even self-inflicted. P. W. 2 proved the private complaint (I. C. C. No. 489/ 73) filed by the accused Chaitan against the informant and others (Ext. B).
5. Both the courts on an assessment of the evidence of the injured persons, the two independent witnesses, such as, P.Ws. 5 and 6, the medical evidence and broad probabilities in that there was a counter-case also, held the two petitioners guilty and convicted them as aforesaid.
6. It was contended on behalf of the petitioners that though the occurrence was on 7-12-73, yet the F.I.R. was lodged on 13-12-73 and the courts below have not taken note of this; that the courts below had also not taken into consideration the discrepancy in the weapon used for infliction of the injuries; that the observation that the medical certificate obtained from a Private Practitioner is of little consequence is unsustainable; and that the prosecution has not established any intention for commission of the crime.
7. It is unnecessary to deal with the evidence of P. Ws. 1, 2, 3 and 4. Both the courts have held that P. W. 1 was first assaulted and when his nephew and brothers came to his rescue, they were severely assaulted by the two petitioners resulting in a fracture of hand of Balaram. Their evidence is corroborated by P. Ws. 5 and 6 who are independent witnesses. Further, their evidence has been borne out by the medical evidence. Lastly, the petitioners had also filed a complaint case (Ext. B) which shows that there was an occurrence of the nature as alleged. It is not the plea of the petitioners that they had inflicted injuries in exercise of their right of private defence. Regarding delay in lodging F.I.R. it is said that as Balaram was severely injured and was removed to hospital, there has been some delay in lodging F.I.R. That delay is inconsequential because of the counter-case. As regards the contention that there is discrepancy in the weapon used, it is not correct inasmuch as the consistent evidence is that a katua has been used and katua is a club with an iron portion at the end. So if any witness said that lathi was used and some say katua was used, it is all of no significance. The next contention that the certificate granted by a Private Practitioner has been disbelieved by the lower court is not correct. Rather it only shows that there was an occurrence like this and the injuries deposed to by the Doctor, as discussed, were not grave enough. As per the last contention about the intention, it is not the duty of the prosecution to establish the intention for any act, if the act itself is proved.
8. In the result, therefore, the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioners are of no avail to them. As such, I would dismiss their revision and in view of the fact that the sentence is not severe, I am also not persuaded to interfere with the same. As such, the revision is dismissed. The petitioners are to surrender to undergo the sentence.