- (1.) KUNDAN Singh, J. This revision has been directed against the judgment and order dated 14-6-1984 passed by the Addi tional Sessions Judge, Ballia, dismissing Criminal Appeal No. 44 of 1983 confirm ing the conviction and sentence of fine of Rs. 500/- (five hundred) imposed on each of the applicants under Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code and in default of pay ment of fine to undergo simple imprison ment for a period of one month awarded by the III Additional Munsif Magistrate, Bal lia, by his judgment and order dated 10-3-93 passed in Criminal Case No. 743 of 1981.
(2.) VERY briefly speaking, it is a case relating to an incident which had taken place on 19-12-1980 in which the ap plicants criminally assaulted Harihar who sustained one lacerated wound, two con tusions, one abrasion and complaint of pain. It appears that this Court passed an order on 15-1-1997 for summoning the lower court record. Learned Counsel for the applicant pressed that the: record of the lower court is essential for the decision of the case; but he failed to show need for summoning the same. I have heard learned Counsel for the applicant and the learned Additional Government Advocate and perused the judgments of the courts below. Learned Counsel for the ap plicants contended that the courts below have not considered the defence version, which falsifies the whole prosecution case, but the submission of the learned Counsel for the applicants is not tenable inasmuch as the court below in the appeal made the following observation in its judgment. ". . . . . . . . . . I perused the statements made by accused Achchey Lal, Ram Kishun and Sri Kishun before the learned Magistrate. From the perusal of the statements I find that no cross version finds place in their statements. It was urged from the side of the appellants that they have taken the plea of self-defence. This plea of self-defence is not there. . . . . . . . . . . Therefore, 1 find that there is no plea of self-defence. Further there is no cross version also. Therefore, the argument advanced in this respect- from the side of the accused appellants have no legs 10 stand upon. " From the above observation made by the lower appellate court it appears that the learned Additional Sessions Judge has gone into the material on record and came to the conclusion that the accused ap plicants have not pleaded the right of private defence in theirs statements recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure nor have they led any evidence in order to prove their defence version. The injuries sustained on the side of the accused persons have been con sidered by the courts below and the learned Additional Sessions Judge came to the conclusion on the basis of evidence on record that it cannot be said that the injuries sustained by the accused persons were sustained in the same incident in which the accused persons inflicted in juries on the person of the injured. The prosecution has examined besides other witnesses, P. W. 2 Harihar, who sustained injuries, to establish that the incident took place in the manner alleged by the prosecution. Learned Counsel for the applicants could not point out any infirmity or illegality in the findings recorded by the courts below. In the present case the three accused applicants have inflicted injuries on the person of the injured. The trial Court has already taken a lenient view in awarding a sentence of fine of Rs. 500/- on each of the accused-applicants and no sen tence of imprisonment has been imposed. In the facts and circumstances I do not find any merit in the revision.
(3.) ACCORDINGLY, the revision is dis missed and conviction and sentence of fine awarded by the trial Court and af firmed by appellate court are maintained. Stay order dated 10-7-1984 stands dis charged and the trial Court is directed to take steps for realising the fine awarded by the trial Court. Revision dismissed. .;