N.B. Asthana, J. - (1.) -This revision has been directed against the judgment and order dated 21.6.82 passed by the then Sessions Judge, Fatehpur in Criminal Appeal No. 84 of 1982 affirming the conviction of the appellants under Sections 325/34 IPC recorded in criminal case No. 761 of 1980 decided on 31.3.82 by the then III Munsif Magistrate, Fatehpur. The Magistrate had convicted the appellants under Section 323 IPC as well. This conviction was set aside in appeal. The appellants were sentenced to undergo rigorious imprisonment of 9 months and pay fine of Rs. 200/- for the offence under Sections 325/34 IPC No. sentence was however passed in default of payment of fine.
(2.) The first point urged is that it has not been proved as to whose lathi caused the grievous injuries and none of them could be convicted under Sections 325/34 IPC. Reliance in this connection has been placed upon State of U.P. v. Mishri Lal and others, 1982 (19) A.C.C. 347 .' In that case it was not proved specifically that all the four appellants assaulted Man Singh. The evidence of the prosecution witnesses and the FIR did not specifically indicate as to which of the appellants caused injuries to Amar Singh. Man Singh and Amar Singh were assaulted with lathies. The court came to the conclusion that the intention of the appellants was to assault Man Singh and Amar Singh with lathies. Lathi can cause simple in,juries and also grievous injuries. In the facts and circumstances it was said that the appellants cannot be said to have intended to cause death of Man Singh. The court held that the appellants were liable to be punished under Section 325 IPC. Since the accused in that case were armed with lathies, the court came to the conclusion that they were guilty of the offence under Section 3251PC:because lathi could caused grievous injuries as well. In the instant case simple and grievous injuries have been caused to the victim. The revisionists were armed with lathies. Their intention was to cause grievous and simple injuries with lathies. Their conviction under Sections 325/34 1PC was rightly recorded. It was then urged that FIR, injury report and other documents have not been proved. From the judgment of the trial court it appears that the genuineness of these documents was admitted and they were exhibited. It was therefore not necessary to examine any witness to prove these documents.
(3.) It was then urged that from the evidence on record the prosecution failed to prove its case. Three witnesses of facts were examined. All of them supported the prosecution story. Their testimony finds sup-port from the medical reports and the prompt FIR. The courts below rightly held the revisionist guilty.;