- (1.) KRISHNA Kumar, J. This revision has been filed against judgment and order dated 6-8-1999 passed by Additional Dis trict Judge, Hapur, District Gaziabad whereby the appeal was dismissed on merit. However, the sentence was modified.
(2.) HEARD learned Counsel for the revisionists and learned A. G. A. Learned Counsel for the revisionists contended that the charge-sheet in this case was filed against Gajraj Singh, Pappu and Suresh. The name of Ramesh was not mentioned in the F. I. R. and the name of Suresh was not mentioned in the F. I. R. Therefore, the identity of ac cused persons was not fixed and the learned lower Court could not convict and sentence the persons whose identity was not ascertained. There was no identifica tion to see whether they actually took part in the crime. From the record it is clear that there was one Gajraj Singh son of Ram Chandra who was accused in this case and the said Gajraj Singh had two sons who were being called by different names. A perusal of the prosecution case as men tioned by trial Court, it is clear that on the spot Gajraj Singh, Pappu and Ramesh came. Gajraj Singh caught hold of injured and Pappu and Ramesh caused injuries. Before the Court, Gajraj Singh, Pappu and Suresh appeared for trial. That shows that Ramesh was also called as Suresh. The fact that two sons of Gajraj Singh are called by different names is also made clear when the learned trial Court convicted and sen tenced Gajraj Singh, Pappu and Suresh but in the appellate Court, Gajraj Singh, Suresh and Ramesh filed appeal. That again shows that Ramesh was called Pappu. In this case, the revision has been filed by Gajraj Singh, Suresh and Rakesh showing that Ramesh is also called Rakesh. It is clear that names are being changed by two sons of Gajraj Singh only to create confusion. From the order of the learned trial Court, it is also clear that Ramesh and Suresh were the two sons of Gajraj Singh and one of them is being called Pappu. From the order of the learned appellate Court, it is clear that Suresh and Ramesh were the two sons of Gajraj Singh and one of them was also known as Pappu. Some discripancy had crept in but there was no doubt either in the mind of the trial Court or in the mind of appellate Court that it were Gajraj Singh and two sons of Gajraj Singh named Ramesh and Suresh who were involved in this case. It may also be stated that if there was some doubt, the accused persons could claim identification. This point being of fact cannot be taken into con sideration at this stage. I am not convinced. with the contention of the learned Counsel for the revisionists that the persons who were not named in the charge-sheet could not be convicted and sentenced when this fact has been fully sorted out in the trial Court as well as by the appellate Court. There is no other illegality and the trial Court committed no mistake or illegality in convicting and sentencing the three revisionists before me. The revision is, therefore, dismissed. Revision dismissed. .;