- (1.) HEARD Sri Brajesh Singh, learned counsel for the revisionists and learned A.G.A. for the State.
(2.) THIS criminal revision has been filed by the convicts Narendra Singh and Surendra Singh against the judgment and order dated 7.3.2005 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Mahoba in Criminal Appeal No.24 of 2004 (Narendra Singh and others Vs. State) against the conviction order dated 29.7.2004 passed by Judicial Magistrate, Mahoba in Criminal Case No.77 of 2004.
(3.) THE brief facts of the case are that on F.I.R. lodged by Surendra Singh on 3.8.1993 with the allegation that Narendra Singh and Surendra Singh beaten his father at about 06:00 p.m. on 2.8.1993, charge -sheet was filed under Sections 323, 324, 504 and 506 I.P.C. and after recording the prosecution evidence and hearing the parties in Criminal Case No.77 of 2004, the Judicial Magistrate, Mahoba passed order of conviction and sentence on 29.7.2004 and holding both the revisionists guilty, convicted them under Sections 323, 324 and 506 I.P.C. and sentenced each of them with six months simple imprisonment and Rs.500/ - fine under Section 323, one year simple imprisonment and Rs.500/ - fine under Section 324 I.P.C. and with six months simple imprisonment and Rs.500/ - fine along with stipulation clause under Section 506 I.P.C. Feeling aggrieved the revisionists filed Criminal Appeal No.24 of 2004 before the Sessions Judge, Mahoba and after hearing the parties, the Ist Additional Sessions Judge, Mahoba vide its judgment and order dated 7.3.2005 partly allowed the appeal and acquitted the revisionists Narendra Singh under Section 324 I.P.C. and revisionist Surendra Singh under Section 323 I.P.C. but confirming the conviction of Narendra Singh under Section 323 I.P.C. and of Surendra Singh under Section 324 I.P.C. and of both of them under Section 506 I.P.C., confirmed the sentence awarded by the trial court under above sections. Feeling aggrieved, the convicts have preferred this revision. The record of lower court has not been received and is not required as the learned counsel for the revisionists submit that since the finding of fact regarding conviction has been confirmed by the appellate court after reappraisal of evidence, he does not want to argue on the point of conviction but wants to confine his arguments only for reduction of sentence. He argued that the revisionists as well as the prosecution party belongs to same family and over a petty dispute between them the incident is alleged to have taken place long back on 2.8.1993. The revisionists are not the persons of criminal antecedents and in view of the provisions of Section 4 of Probation of Offenders Act, they are entitled to be released on probation. He further argued that, in case the court does not find it a fit case for releasing the revisionists on probation then the sentence may kindly be reduced from imprisonment and fine, to fine only.;