Raj Mani Chauhan, J. - (1.) Heard learned Counsel for the revisionist and learned Additional Government Advocate for the State as well as perused the documents available on record.
(2.) This Criminal Revision under Sec. 397/401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the 'Code') has been preferred by the accused -revisionist -Ram Shanker and Smt. Laxmi Devi against the impugned judgment and order dated 06.10.2010 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 1, Unnao in Criminal Appeal No. 04/09 Ram Shanker and Anr. v/s. State whereby the learned Additional Sessions Judge has dismissed the appeal filed by the Appellants against the judgment and order dated 13.1.2009 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Unnao in Criminal Case No. 1023/2000 State v/s. Ram Shanker and Anr. arising out of Crime No. 286/1999, under Ss. 323/504/506 IPC, P.S. Kotwali, District Unnao whereby the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate has held the accused revisionist No. 1 -Ram Shanker guilty under Sec. 323 IPC consequently he has convicted and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for a period of one year under Sec. 323 IPC and held the accused revisionist No. 2 -Smt. Laxmi Devi guilty under Sec. 324 IPC consequently he has convicted and sentenced her to undergo imprisonment for a period of one year under Sec. 324 IPC.
(3.) As regards the finding of conviction, from a perusal of the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge as well as the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, it appears that the finding of both the courts below are based on proper appreciation of the prosecution evidence which cannot be interfered with by this Court in revision while invoking its revisional power under Sec. 397 of the Code unless the finding is perverse. This Court being revisional court cannot re -appreciate the evidence at this stage. The learned Counsel for the accused -revisionist failed to show any perversity in the finding of the Trial Court and affirmed by the Appellate Court. Therefore, I do not find any illegality in the finding of conviction recorded by the Chief Judicial Magistrate as confirmed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge which cannot be interfered with by this Court in the present revision.;