- (1.) N. B. Asthana, J. This revision has been directed against the judgment and order dated 10-7-1992 passed by A. C. J. M. , Baghpat in Criminal Case No. 2771 of 1990 convicting the revisionists under Sections 323 and 324/34, I. P, C. and sentencing each of them to undergo R. I. of one year each and the judgment dated 16-2-1995 passed by VIIIth Additional Sessions Judge, Meerut in Criminal Appeal Nos. 49 of 92 and 50 of 92 confirming the convic tion and sentence recorded by the trial court.
(2.) THE prosecution story, in brief, was that on 22-7-1990 revisionist Desh Raj had taken the first informant's brother PW-2 Satyavir Singh to the fields to answer the call of nature where he was inflicted injuries by the revisionist with knife and blunt weapons. Upon hue and cry raised by him the first informant, PW-1 Ramesh Kumar and a number of other persons reached there. Revisionist then ran away. FJ. R. was lodged of the incident at 10. 05 p. m. at the police station THE injured was examined at 10. 30 p. m. THE case was investigated and then the charge-sheet was submitted against the revisionists upon which they were convicted as above. The incident is said to have taken place at 9. 15 p. m. The first point urged is that the F. I. R. was lodged at 10. 30 a. m. but it was ante timed and was shown to have been lodged at 10. 05 p. m. Curiously enough the arguments advanced before the appellate court was that the F. I. R. was lodged too promptly to be believed. PW-1 Ramesh Kumar in his examination-in- chief gave out that they reached the police station at about 10-30 p. m. After the report was lodged the injured was taken to the doctor. He examined him at 10-30 p. m. PW-1 Ramesh Kumar in his cross- examina tion gave out that they had reached the hospital at about 10-30 p. m. The documentary evidence on records thus goes to show that the F. I. R. was lodged at 10-05 p. m. and the injured was examined at 10-30 p. m. PW-1 Ramesh Kumar also stated that they reached hospital at 10-30 p. m. It appears that the statement given by the first informant and the injured that they reached the police station at 10-30 p. m. was by approximation. Even if the F. I. R. was lodged at 10-30 p. m. it would not have been delayed. The prosecution did not stand to gain anything by ante-timing the F. I. R. In the circumstances the argument that the F. I R. was ante-timed has no force. It was then urged that no independent witness has been examined. It appears from the material on record that the other witnesses reached the place of occurrence after the revisionists had made good their escape and for that reason none of them was named in the F. I. R. nor any of them was examined. In any case the statement of the injured supported by prompt F. I. R. and corroborated by the injury report was sufficient for conviction of the revisionists. This evidence if believed was sufficient. No other evidence was required. Both the courts below have believed the testimony of the injured and also of the first informant.
(3.) IT was then argued that according to PW-1 Ramesh Kumar the injured and revisionist Desh Raj were seeing T. V. at the house of the injured while according to the injured they were seeing T. V. at the house of H. Singh. The argument is that this would be lie the prosecution story that the injured and Desh Raj were seeing T. V. together and thereafter Desh Raj asked the injured to accompany him a he was going to answer the call of nature. The injured in his cross-examination gave out that he and Desh Raj had gone to the house of Hoshiyar Singh at 7-30 p. m. to see the picture and that after the end of the picture at about 8-45 p. m. he went with Desh Raj when he was going to answer the call of nature. IT appears that both these persons were seeing picture at the house of the injured and at 7-30 p. m. after the news went to the house of Hoshiyar Singh to see the remaining part of the picture. There does not appear to be any contradiction. There appears to be some contradictions in his statements as to whether he and Desh Raj went together to see the picture at the house of Hoshiyar Singh and whether Desh Raj was seeing picture at his house. These contradictions are of a minor nature and appear to have been caused as his statement was recorded after about 1 years of the date of incident. It was also urged that there is difference regarding the place of injuries as deposed by the doctor and as deposed by the injured. I have looked them. There does not appear to be any such difference. The injury inflicted on the chest traveled up to the abdomen and, therefore, the injured gave out that one injury was also caused at the abdomen.;