VIRENDRA SINGH,J. - (1.) SURESH the accused/revisionist, preferred this revision against the judgement and order dated 14.06.1983 passed by Sri Praduman Kumar HJS 7th Additional Sessions Judge, Badaun in Criminal Appeal No. 286/1982 (Suresh vs. State) whereby the learned Lower Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the order dated 06.10.1982 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate 2nd, Badaun in Case No. 791/1982 (State vs. Ram Autar and Others) in which the accused/revisionist was convicted and sentenced to undergo RI for one year for the offence u/s 458 IPC and RI for 6 months for the offence u/s 323/34 IPC with the direction that both the sentence shall run concurrently.
(2.) I have heard learned counsel for the revisionist and learned AGA on behalf of the State of U.P. The respondent and perused the record. It is submitted on behalf of the revisionist that no case u/s 458 and Section 323/34 IPC was made out against the revisionist and the judgement of the courts below are bad in law. There is no independent witness to support the prosecution case. The witnesses produced by the prosecution are related to the complainant. Even independent witness have not supported the prosecution case. They have only stated that they had seen accused persons from behind of them running from the place of occurrence. The injury on the person of the injured persons speak to falsity of the prosecution case as were found merely five superficial injuries on two persons. There were material contradictions too in the statements of the prosecution witnesses and even then the court below placed reliance on such witnesses thereby committing manifest error in passing the impugned order. It is also submitted that this Revision may be allowed thereby setting aside the judgement and orders of both the courts below thereby acquitting the revisionist for the offences and sentences awarded to him.
(3.) THE learned AGA contended that there is no error either on the facts of the case or on any point of law in the impugned orders which have been passed by both the courts below thereby convicting the accused/revisionist and sentencing them for the offence u/s 498, 323/34 IPC, well proved on record through the reliable prosecution evidence. It is also contended that there is no force in this revision being no error in concurrent findings of both the courts below.;