- (1.) VINOD Prasad, J. The three uterine sibling brothers Arun Kumar, Hare Krishna and Sanjai Kumar, all sons of Hari Mohan Vyas resident of village Sikri Vyas police station Kotra District Jalaun at Orai have invoked the revisional jurisdiction of this Court under Sections 397/411 IPC, challenging their convictions under Section 323/34 and 325/34 IPC and sentences for six months simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500/- each on the first count and two years simple imprisonment with fine of Rs. 1,000/- each on the second could recorded by Judicial Magistrate/civil Judge (Jr. Division) Jalaun at Orai by his impugned judgment and order dated 18-4-2006 passed in criminal case No. 95 of 2005, State v. Arun Kumar and Ors. , relating to crime No. 30 of 2002, P. S. Kotra, District Jalaun at Orai which conviction and sentence have been confirmed in Criminal Appeal No. 13 of 2006, Arun Kumar and Ors. v. State, by Session's Judge, Orai vide his impugned judgment and order dated 5- 2-2007.
(2.) PROSECUTION case against the revisionists as is perceptible from the facts mention in both the judgments are that Rajesh Kumar Vyas (injured) son of Madsudan Vyas (informant) had gone to search for his buffalo on 24-3-2002 at 10 a. m. when near his field in village Sikri Vyas his relatives Arun Kumar Vyas, Hare Krishna Vyas and Sanjai Kumar Vyas, the three accused revisionist, vetuparised him because the injured asked them as to why they had stopped his labour from cutting the crops and accused revisionist Sanjai with axe and rest of the two accused revisionist with Lathis assaulted him at 11 a. m. that day. Cry for help from the injured attracted Govind Das, Udai Pal Singh, Nand Kishore and many other co-villagers who saved his life. Informant scribed the F. I. R. (Ext. Ka-1) and lodged it at police station Kotra fifty minutes later the incident. Chik F. I. R. , Ext. Ka-4, was prepared as Crime No. 30 of 2002 under Sections 323, 325, 504, 506 (2) and GD entry for recording of F. I. R. , Ext. Ka-5, was made. Investigating Officer started the investigation and dispatched the injured for his medical examination. Medical examination of the injured Rajesh Kumar was conducted by Dr. Lalit Kumar Niranjan on 24-3-2002 at 3. 30 p. m. His medical examination report Ext. Ka-3 showed that the injured had sustained 11 injuries in all with three lacerated wounds, five contusions, two swellings and one abrasion. His X-ray examination was got done by Dr. M. C. Mittal and his X-ray Plate and report-Ext. Ka-2 indicated that his Radius and Ulna bones of right wrist joint, Femur bone of right knee, and Fibula bone of right ankle joint were fractured. Investigating Officer during further investigation prepared site plan Ext. Ka-6, made inspection note, recorded statements of witnesses and injured and after completion of investigation submitted charge- sheet against the accused revisionists as Ext. Ka-7 in the Court. Trial Magistrate on 1-5-2003 charged the accused revisionist with offences under Sections 323/34, 325/34 and 506 (2) IPC which they denied and claimed to be tried. In the trial prosecution, to bring home the charge against the accused, examined Rajesh Kumar (injured) as P. W. 1, Madusudan (informant) P. W. 2, Govind Das (eye-witness) P. W. 3, Dr. M. C. Mittal (Radiologist) P. W. 4, Dr. Lalit Kumar Niranjan (Doctor) P. W. 5 and Babu Lal, constable as P. W. 6.
(3.) ACCUSED revisionist in their statement under Section 313 Cr. P. C. pleaded the usual defence of denial and false implication. Trial Magistrate finding the case of the prosecution proved to the hilt and guilt of the accused revisionist cemented by cogent and reliable evidences convicted them for the charged offences under Sections 323/34, 325/34 and 506 (2) IPC and sentenced them to undergo six months simple imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- each on the first count, 2 years simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,000/- each on the second count and 1 year simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500/- each on the last count vide his impugned judgment and order dated 18-4- 2006. Aggrieved by their aforesaid convictions and sentences revisionists preferred Criminal Appeal No. 13 of 2006 before Sessions's Judge Orai which is allowed in part. Lower Appellate Court set aside their conviction and sentence under Section 506 (2) IPC but dismissed their appeal in respect of convictions and sentences for offences under Sections 323/34 and 325/34 IPC vide it's impugned judgment and order dated 5-2-2007. Hence, this revision challenging both the impugned orders for the said convictions and sentences.;