- (1.) N. B. Asthana, J. The revisionists were convicted in Criminal Case No. 800 of 1992 under Sections 323/34, 325/34/504 and 506, I. P. C. Each of them was sentenced to undergo R. I. of six months and pay fine of Ks. 500 for the offence punishable under Section 325/34, I, P. C. , to undergo, three months' R. I. under Section 323/34, I. P. C. to undergo two months' R. I. under Section 506, I. P. C. and to undergo one month's R. I. under Section 504, I. P. C. All the sentences were made to run concurrently. In default of payment of fine each of them was directed to undergo one month's simple imprisonment. The appeal preferred by the (sic) was dismissed on merits by the learned Sessions Judge, Jhansi on 22-4-1995. The sentences passed, however, were reduced to three months' R. I. and fine of Rs. 250. The sentence under Sec tion 323/34, I. P. C. was reduced to 1$ months' R. I. The sentence (s) under Section 506, I. P. C. was reduced to one month. The sentence under Section 504, I. P. C. was maintained. Aggrieved by this judgment the revisionists have come to this Court in Revision.
(2.) THE incident is said to have taken place on 19-1-1989 at about 6 30 p. m. Some civil litigation was pending with respect to a Mahua tree and that was said to be the motive for committing the crime. Imrat Singh and Hariram are said to have been injured in this incident. Imrat Singh had five injuries while Hariram had two injuries. As a result of radiological examina tion fracture of lower part of the fibula of Imrat Singh found. The trial court upon consideration of the evidence adduced in the case found the revisionists guilty. The appellate court confirmed the findings of the trial court. There does not appear to be any legal infirmity or proce dural irregularity in the conduct of the trial. Both the courts have examined critically the evidence adduced in the case and have come to a definite finding that the incident as alleged took place. Two of the witnesses are injured. It seems improbable that they would have left out the real culprits and would have implicated the revisionists falsely. There does not appear to be any scope for interference on the merits of the case. It was. however, urged that the parties reside in the same village and are the descendants of common ancestors and, therefore, a lenient view should be taken. From the judgment of the appellate court it is clear that it has taken note of this argument and on that basis' had reduced the period of imprisonment awarded by the trial court. There does not appear to be any scope for further leniency. Without any provision two persons were inflicted injuries by the revisionists. The injuries cannot be said to be superficial. The nature and number of injuries would clearly indicate that they were given sufficient beating. Injuries Nos. 1 and 2 of Imrat Singh are on the head. Injury No. 1 of Hariram is on left parietal part of the scull.
(3.) IN view of the above revision has no force and is dismissed at the admission stage. Revision dismissed. .;