PANI BHUSHAN VS SIBAKALI BASU Case Analysis

SCC Online Web Edition, © 2023 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.
Page 1 Monday, October 23, 2023

Printed For: 2021 LLB Ayush Bajpai, Dr. RML National Law University
SCC Online Web Edition: http://www.scconline.com
© 2023 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd., Lucknow.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1949 SCC OnLine Cal 11 : AIR 1952 Cal 218 : 1952 Cri LJ 582
Calcutta High Court

(BEFORE SEN, J.)
Phani Bhusan Ghosh and another … Accused-Petitioners;

Versus
Sibakali Basu … Complainant-Opposite party.
Criminal Revn. No. 937 of 1948
Decided on January 20, 1949
ORDER
1. This rule has been obtained by Phani Bhusan Ghosh and Sital Sarkar. Phani
Bhusan has been convicted of having committed an offence punishable under section
355 of the Indian Pejial Code, that is to say, of having assaulted a person with intent
to dishonour him. Sital Sarkar, petitioner No. 2, was convicted under section 323 of
the Penal Code, 1860, that is to say, of having caused simple hurt; both the
petitioners have been sentenced to pay certain fines in default to undergo
imprisonment for certain terms.
2. The case for the prosecution briefly is as follows: one Sibakali Bose lives in the
village of Harope. He is the complainant.
3. His son-in-law Nanda Dulal Das lives in the village of Khalore. On the 26th
December 1947, Siba Kali went to his son-in-law and stayed there. On the 28th of the
same month at about 7-30 a.m. the petitioners Phani Bhusan and Sital Sarkar and one
Chandi Sarkar had an altercation with Nanda Dulal over the repairing of an old fencing
which was on the land of Nanda Dulal. Sibakali tried to intervene on behalf of his son-
in-law whereupon Sital Sarkar gave him a blow while Phani Bhusan struck him with a
slipper on the left ear.
4. The defence taken is that Nanda Dulal enchroached on the land of the accused
and erected a new fencing thereon. Over this there was an altercation and in the
course of such altercation Nanda Dulal abused Sital's father
Page: 219
and trespassed upon Sital's land in order to assault Sital. The complainant Sibakali
hastened to the spot to support his son-in-law when he fell down upon the hard
ground and sustained injuries. It was suggested by the defence that this case was
started in order to cimcumvent any possible case that might be instituted by the
accused petitioners. Seven witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution. Of
these 7, 2 witnesses, namely P.W.s. 3 and 4 (Sudhir Kumar Bose and Bibhuti Bhusan
Bose) were not tendered for cross examination and their evidence was expunged.
Among the witnesses was a Doctor who examined the injuries on Sibakali. The
prosecution rely upon the medical evidence as negativing the defence story that the
injuries might have been caused by a fall. The defence gave no evidence but
contented itself with making certain suggestions. The learned Magistrate has believed
the prosecution story and convicted the petitioners as stated above.
5. Learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioners first argued that the
evidence of the witnesses P.W.s. 3 and 4 (Sudhir Kumar Bose and Bibhuti Bhusan
SCC Online Web Edition, © 2023 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.
Page 2 Monday, October 23, 2023
Printed For: 2021 LLB Ayush Bajpai, Dr. RML National Law University
SCC Online Web Edition: http://www.scconline.com
© 2023 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd., Lucknow.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bose) should not have been expunged as they went in favour of the defence and he
contended that there is no provision in the law that such evidence should be expunged
merely because the witnesses were not tendered for cross examination. I do not think
there is any substance in this contention. Unless examination of a witness is complete,
that is to say, unless he has been cross-examined and re-examined or unless his cross
examination or re-examination has been declined, his evidence cannot be considered
except in the circumstances mentioned in Section 33 of the Indian Evidence Act. There
is nothing to show that these persons are dead or incapable of giving evidence or that
they cannot be found or that they have been kept out of the way by the complainant;
nor is there any evidence that their presence cannot be obtained without an amount of
delay or expense which in the circumstances of the case the court considers
unreasonable. In the absence of these circumstances such incomplete evidence cannot
be accepted.
6. The next ground taken by learned Advocate for the petitioners is that although
the trial court has accepted the evidence given on behalf of the prosecution, it has
expressed no opinion on the defence taken. From this learned Advocate for the
petitioners asks me to draw the inference that the learned Magistrate has not weighed
the evidence as he should have done. He contends that in weighing the evidence the
learned Magistrate should have taken into consideration the suggestions made and
either accepted them or negatived them. There is certainly this unsatisfactory element
in the judgment. The learned Magistrate apart from stating the defence has not given
his opinion directly upon the defence case but I do not think that this fact would
justify me to interfere in revision. It is clear from the judgment that the learned
Magistrate took note of the defence because he has stated the defence fully in his
judgment. He has believed the prosecution evidence and he has given his reasons
therefor. Having believed the prosecution evidence it necessarily followed that the
defence suggestions were not accepted. Had the defence given some evidence and
had the learned Magistrate not discussed it, the petitioners would have had legitimate
grievance. The defence has merely made suggestions and these suggestions are not
supported by any evidence. I do not consider that much notice need be taken of them.
As regards the medical evidence I find that on the whole it does support the case for
the prosecution. The doctor says that some of the injuries found on the person of
Sibakali might have been caused by a fall but he adds in reexamination that if the
injuries had been caused by a fall he would expect further injuries on that side of the
body of Sibakali.
7. Sibakali is an old man of 76 and there can be no doubt that striking a
respectable old man with a slipper would amount to an offence punishable under S.
355 of the Penal Code, 1860. Indeed learned Advocate for the petitioners does not
argue that the facts if considered to be proved would not support the charge.
8. Having regard to all these circumstances, I am of opinion that the judgment of
the court below should not be interfered with. I accordingly uphold the decision of the
court below and discharge this rule. The order of compensation will also stand.
K.S.
9. Rule discharge.
———
Disclaimer: While every effort is made to avoid any mistake or omission, this casenote/ headnote/ judgment/ act/ rule/ regulation/ circular/
notification is being circulated on the condition and understanding that the publisher would not be liable in any manner by reason of any mistake
or omission or for any action taken or omitted to be taken or advice rendered or accepted on the basis of this casenote/ headnote/ judgment/ act/
rule/ regulation/ circular/ notification. All disputes will be subject exclusively to jurisdiction of courts, tribunals and forums at Lucknow only. The
authenticity of this text must be verified from the original source.

PANI BHUSHAN VS SIBAKALI BASU Case Analysis

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

PANI BHUSHAN VS SIBAKALI BASU Case Analysis

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

PANI BHUSHAN VS SIBAKALI BASU Case Analysis

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

SCC Online Web Edition, © 2023 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.

Page 1 Monday, October 23, 2023

Calcutta High Court

Phani Bhusan Ghosh and another … Accused-Petitioners;

You might also like