Surya Prasad - (1.) THIS is a criminal revision against the judgment and order dated 16th August. 1985 passed by the then learned 1 Additional Sessions judge, Gorakhpur in Criminal Appeal No. 151 of 1984 partly allowing the appeal filed against the order dated 10th August, 1984 in Criminal Case No. 585 of 1980 State v. Ram Jivawan and others maintaining the conviction and sentence passed against the appellants under Sections 323 and 325 IPC and modifying the fine imposed to the extent of Rs. 200/- each under section 323 IPC
(2.) HEARD the learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the record in general and the impugned judgment and order in particular. The courts below have vividly narrated the facts of the case in detail in their respective judgments and orders. There does not appear any necessity to repeat the same. The learned counsel for the revisionists-accused has argued that there were six accused-persons in the aforesaid criminal case, that three of them were acquitted and that the revisionists-accused were convicted by the courts below and therefore, the witnesses examined by the prosecution can very well be treated as not wholly reliable or wholly unreliable, but only parly reliable. For this he has relied upon "Vadivelu Thevar, Appellant, v. The State of Madras. Respondent", AIR 1957 SC 614. He has, in this vary connection further argued that the testimony of the partly reliable witnesses does not find support from what has been mentioned in the First Information Report particularly on the point of weapons used by the accused In the course of the incident this is so because the First Information Report does not disclose as to who of the accused-persons was armed with which of the weapon.
(3.) THE learned counsel for the revisionists has farther argued that there is no explanation for the delay in the lodging of the First Information Report He has further argued that the place of occurrence is also not established beyond all reasonable doubts, He has also argued that the medical evidence dues not coincide with the ocular account He has ultimately argued that the above facts and circumstances swing the balance of Justice in favour of the revisionists- accused in the form of their aquittal of the offences with which they have been charged. His arguments do not appear to be without substance. In the result the revision is allowed The impugned judgment and order are set aside. The revisionists are acquitted of the offences with which they have been charged. They are on bail Their bail bonds are cancelled tod sureties stand discharged. They need not surrender.;