- (1.) N. S. Gupta, J. This criminal revision is directed against the judgment and order dated 28-6-84, passed by K. P. Nigam, the then Vlth Additional District & Sessions Judge, Fatehpur in Criminal Appeal No. 2 of 1984, confirming the judgment and order of the 1st Addl. Munsif Magistrate, Fateh pur in case No. 202 of 1983, convicting the accused revisionists under Section 323, I. P. C. and sentencing them to undergo R. I. for a period of six months each and to pay a fine of Rs. 200 each and in default of the payment of the same to further undergo R. I. for a period of one month each.
(2.) THE prosecution case is that on 5-6-81 at about 7. 00 a. m. in village Kalim Khan-pur, P. S. Zafarganj, district Fatehpur the accused revisionists were cutting the wall of the house of the complainant and when the complainant objected to the same the ac cused revisionists abused him and assaulted the complainant and his brother Shadi Lal by means of lathi and danda and caused the following injuries: Injuries of Chhote Lal (1) Lacerated wound 2 1/2 cm x 1/4 cm x bone deep on skull. (2) Contused swelling 5 cm x 3 cm on left forearm. (3) Contusion 1/2 cm x 1/4 cm on right hand little finger. Complain of pain in right shoulder. Injuries of Shade Lai (1 ). Lacerated wound 3 cm x 1/2 cm x bone deep on skull towards right. After needful trial into the matter the accused revisionists were convicted by the trial Magistrate. Their conviction and sentence were confirmed by the lower ap pellate court of VI Additional District & Sessions Judge, Fatehpur. Hence the revision. I have heard Sri R. B. Sahai, learned counsel for the revisionists and A. G. A. for State; considered their contentions and gone through the facts and circumstances of the case.
(3.) THE case concluded by the finding of fact recorded by the two courts below on the point that the accused revisionists were responsible for voluntarily causing hurt to the complainant Chhote Lal and his brother Shade Lal on the date and time of occur rence alleged by the prosecution. THE con tention of the prosecution in this behalf finds full corroboration by the medical evidence of Dr. V K. Misra, P. W. 5. As such, I find no impropriety or illegality in the ap proach of the lower appellate Court in sus taining the conviction of the accused revisionists as recorded by the trial Magistrate. Coming on the point of sentence, it was argued by the learned counsel for the accused revisionists that the accused revisionists have already undergone im prisonment for about a month or so during the course of trial. It was argued that the occurrence had taken place about 15 years back. The accused revisionists have already suffered a lot of mental agony since then- the conviction remaining hanging over their heads. It was, therefore, urged that the period of imprisonment undergone by the accused revisionists be considered as suffi cient punishment.;