- (1.) PRAFULLA C. Pant, J. This revision, preferred under Section 397 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, is directed against the judg ment and order dated 03. 03. 1987, passed in Criminal Appeal No. 09 of 1985, by learned Sessions Judge, Dehradun, whereby judgment and order dated 11. 2. 1985 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate in Criminal Case No. 1992 of 1982, has been upheld and conviction under Section 323 and 452 of Indian Penal Code, 1860, has been maintained. Learned Sessions Judge has confirmed the sentence passed against Sundari Devi and Jagdish but as against Kanta Prasad, it has been modified and re duced to the period of jail already undergone and fine of Rs. 500/ - un der Section 452 and Rs. 300/- under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code.
(2.) PROSECUTION story in brief is that on 10. 09. 1982, at about 4:00 P. M. , the revisionists (accused) entered into the house of Mehar Chandra and assaulted Smt. Kanti Devi (W /o Mehar Chandra ), Km. Babita (D/o Mehar Chandra) and Rejendra (S/ o Mehar Chandra ). The said accused (revisionists) entered into the house of Kanti Devi, armed with dandaas and hockey. Kanta Prasad was said to have armed with hockey while other two were armed with dandaas. On hearning the cries of the injured, P. W. 4 ( Dhoom Singh) and P. W. 5 (Megh Pal), rushed to the scene of occurrence and saved them. Rajendra gave information of the incident to his father Mehar Chandra ( P. W. I ), who got the F. I. R. lodged with the Police Station at about 4:30 P. M: on the same day. P. W. 6, Dr. P. K. Gupta, examined the injured and fol lowing injuries were found by him: In juries found on the person of Km. Babita (P. W. 3) : 1. Contusion red in colour 6cm x 3. 5cm, with traumatic swelling on left side face just below left lower eyelid. 2. Traumatic swelling cum contu sion 3 cm x 2cm on the right half of nose on the face, bleed ing from right nostril. Complain of pain on left side of chest and left arm. Injury No. 1 was reported to be sim ple while No. 2 was kept under observation. Injuries found on the person of Smt. Kanti Devi (P. W. 2) : 1. Lacerated wound 0. 5 cm x 0. 2 cm on the socket of upper left lateral incisor, fresh blood from socket. Tooth loose in socket. 2. Contusion size 11 cm x 6 cm with traumatic swelling around right upper arm lower one third. Complain of pain on the back. Injury No. 1 and 2 were kept un der observation. The Investigating Officer, Shri S. C. Sharma (P. W. 7), after investi gation submitted charge sheet against all the three accused namely, Kanta prasad, Smt. Sundari Devi and Jagdish alias Budhu. After giving necessary copies and hearing the parties on charge, the Magistrate framed charge under Section 452 and 323 of Indian Penal Code against all the three accused, who denied the charge and claimed to be tried. Learned Magistrate, after re cording the evidence of prosecution as well as that of the defence in which D. W. 1 P. D. Kestwal and D. W. 2 H. C,. Surendra Mohan were exam ined, found all the three accused guilty of offence punishable under Section 452 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code, I860. After hearing on sentence, the learned Magistrate sen tenced each of the accused to one year rigorous imprisonment under Section 452 and three months rigor ous imprisonment under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code. However, the Magistrate gave the convict Jagdish Prasad and Sundari Devi benefit of provision under Section 4 of Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, on the condition that they would file personal bond of Rs. 2,000/ - and furnish two sureties each of the like amount for keeping good conduct for one year. All the three convicts (revision ists), filed an appeal under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Proce dure, 1973, before the Sessions Judge, challenging the judgment and order passed by the Magistrate. The said appeal was registered as Crimi nal Appeal No. 09 of 1985. Learned Sessions Judge, Dehradun, after hearing the parties dismissed the ap peal and confirmed the conviction as against all the three accused. How ever, on the point of sentence, while the sentences passed against Jagdish Prasad and Smt. Sundari Devi were upheld, the sentence passed against Kanta prasad was reduced to the pe riod already undergone and to fine of Rs. 500/ - under Section 452 and Rs. 300 / - under Section 323 of the In dian Penal Code. Aggrieved by said judgment and order dated 03. 03. 1987, this revision was filed before the Allahabad High Court by the convicts, which is received by this Court by transfer under Section 35 of U. P. Reorganisation Act, 2000.
(3.) I heard learned counsel for the revisionist and learned Assistant Gov ernment Advocate and perused the record. I do not find any illegality in the impugned order passed by the learned Sessions Judge affirming the order of the learned Magistrate. There is ample oral and documentary evidence ad duced on behalf of the prosecution whereby the charge of offence punish able under Section 452 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, were found proved by the courts below. F. I. R. (Exh. 1) read with its check report (Exh. A- 6 ) and Medical Injury reports (Exh. 3, A- 4 and A- 5), corroborate the state ment of the injured eye- witnesses ex amined by the trial court. Copy of the General Diary Report (Exh. A-7) and Site Plan (Exh. A- 8) further corroborate the prosecution story. It is pertinent to mention here that this Court is not an appellate court but it is exercising the revisional jurisdiction. As such, there is no need to further reappreciate the evi dence at this stage.;