- (1.) N. B. Asthana, J. The revisionists were convicted in criminal case No. 1919 of 1993 by III Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mecrut under Sections 323. 324/34,325/34 and 504 I. P. C. Each of them was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment of 6 months under Sections 323/34 I. P. C. , rigorous imprisonment of one year under Sections 324/34 I. P. C. to one year's R. I. and fine of Rs. 500/- for the offence under Sections 325/34 I. P. C. and to 3 months R. I. for the offence under Section 504 I. P. C. All the sentences were made to run concurrently. In default of payment of fine the revisionists were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment of 3 months. They filed criminal appeal No. 76/93 which was dismissed by VIII Addl. Sessions Judge, Meerut on 1. 4. 95. He also directed that in case fine is realised a sum of Rs. 1000/- would be paid as compensation to Hukum Singh. The convicts have now come to this Court in revision.
(2.) I have heard the learned counsel for the revisionists and have perused the material available on record. The first point urged that no offence under Section 504 I. P. C. can be said to have been made out. This section says that whoever intentionally insults and thereby gives provocation to any person intending or knowing it to be likely that such provocation will cause may break public peace or to commit any other offence shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years or with fine or with both. From the narration of the facts as given by the trial court it does not appear that the first informant was at all insulted. It appears that the revisionists told him that he be taught a lesson for going in litigation over the chak road and then started beating him. No offence under Section 504 I. P. C. can be said to have been made out. It was then urged that the revisionists had a cross version of the case and that they exercised the right of self-defence inflicting injuries upon the complainant. The argument is that this aspect of the case was not considered by the courts below.
(3.) FROM the judgment of the trial court it would appear that no evidence was adduced in the case regarding the pendency of the cross case. Copy of the F. I. R. copy of the injury report were not placed on record. The trial court was of the opinion that in the absence of these documents and in the absence of any evidence adduced by the revisionists regarding their version of the cross case. It cannot be said that the trial court committed any mistake in not believing the defence version of the case. The revisionists should have filed all the necessary papers including the F. I. R. and the injury report and should have proved them as required by law and should also have adduced some evidence to show that the incident took place in the manner as alleged by them and that in exercise of their right of private defence they inflicted injuries. It may be noted that P. W. 1 Smt. Kailashi in her cross examination gave out that while defending themselves 2 or 4 lathi blows were also inflicted upon the assailants. P. W. 3 Hukum Singh in his cross examination gave out that in order to save their lives they also wielded Lathi in self-defence. These statements would clearly explain the injury, if any, found on the revisionists. Before the appellate court the main point urged was that in the altercation in question the revisionists also received injuries, that the aggressors were Hukum Singh and" the other injured and therefore they cannot be convicted. The copy of statement given by revisionists Rikkhan was filed at the appellate stage. The appellate court was of the opinion on the basis of additional evidence adduced in appeal, that none of the revisionists in the cross case stated that they inflicted injuries upon Hukum Singh, his wife Kailashi, his daughter Kusumi, his son Bal Mukund. The appellate court disbelieved the theory of self- defence put up by the revisionists. The appellate court has also remarked that the son of Hukum Singh who was about 12 years of age was also involved in the cross case. According to the appellate court a boy of such tender age could not have participated in the crime. In short the appellate court disbelieved the revisionists version of self-defence.;