- (1.) HEARD Sri Rajeev Misra, learned counsel for the revisionists, Sri Sanjay Srivastava, Advocate holding brief of Sri R.B. Sahai, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
(2.) THE present revision has been filed against the order dated 29.5.2004 passed by A.C.J.M. -III, Jaunpur and order dated 8.3.2006 passed by Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court No.3), Jaunpur.
(3.) THE brief facts relating to the case are that on the complaint of Smt. Shanti Devi against Surendra, Virendra, Vimal and Ramesh, the opposite parties were summoned under Sections 323 and 504 I.P.C. for the incident dated 2.7.1997 and in trial of Case No.1093 of 2003, after recording evidence and hearing parties, the learned Magistrate acquitted all the four accused persons from the charges under Section 504 I.P.C. and convicted all of them under Section 323 I.P.C. and sentenced each of them with six months simple imprisonment and Rs.500/ - as fine and one month additional imprisonment in lieu of fine. Feeling aggrieved with the conviction order of A.C.J.M. the accused persons filed criminal appeal before the Sessions Judge, Jaunpur and the above Criminal Appeal No.54 of 2004 was decided by Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court No.3), Jaunpur vide impugned judgment and order dated 8.3.2006 confirming the conviction but converted and modified the sentence by releasing the accused persons on probation by giving them benefit of Section 4 of Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 with a period of probation, fixed at one year. Apart from above the Appellate Court also directed each accused -appellant to deposit Rs.250/ - as fine which will be payable to the injured complainant as compensation. Feeling aggrieved with the order of conviction and modified sentence the convicts have preferred revision before this Court. Learned counsel for the accused -revisionists argued that the order of conviction of revisionists passed by two courts below is wrong on facts and law; that the complainant failed to prove the charges levelled against the revisionists by any independent, reliable and cogent evidence; that the complainant failed to prove the alleged injuries on the person of complainant Smt. Shanti Devi as the Medical Officer who allegedly prepared the injury report was not examined and since the complainant failed to examine the Medical Officer, the injury report may not be considered to have been proved and could not have been relied; that in absence of proof of injury report, the charges were not proved against the revisionists and they were liable to be acquitted; that the complainant has mentioned four persons as eye witnesses of the incident in the complaint but only two were examined and for non -examination of Daya Shanker and Ram Ikbal adverse inference was required to be drawn against the complainant; that the courts below failed to consider the defence evidence of Saijan Pandey and Hari Shanker who were examined as D.W. -1 and D.W. -2 and denied from the alleged incident; that there were material contradictions in the statements of prosecution witnesses and no independent evidence was produced to prove the charges; that it was a mandatory duty of the courts below to record specific reasons for not granting benefit of Section 360 Cr.P.C. and the impugned judgments and orders are liable to be set -aside on this ground also; that the conviction order is bad on facts and law and the same is liable to be set -aside; that at the time of releasing accused persons on probation giving benefit of Section 4 of Probation of Offenders Act, the imposition of fine may not be maintained and the impugned order is liable to be set -aside on this score.;