- (1.) P. K. Jain, J. Heard Sri Sudhakar Pandey, learned Counsel for the revision ists and the learned A. G. A.
(2.) THIS revision is being finally dis posed of at the admission stage with the consent of the parties. Revisionists Chandresh and Smt. Pushpa Devi (wife of Chandresh revision ist) were convicted by the trial Court for offences under Sections 323 and 324, IPC respectively. Revisionists Chandresh was setnenced to imprisonment for 6 months' SI and pay a fine of Rs. 500/- under Sec tion 323, IPC and Smt. Pushpa Devi, the revisionist was also sentenced under Sec tion 324, IPC SI for 6 months and pay fine of Rs, 500/ -. In defualt of payment of fine both of them- were ordered to undergo further SI for 15 days each. Appeal preferred by them was dismissed by Sessions Judge, Budaun vide judgment and order, dated 16-8-97.
(3.) THE learned Counsel for the revi sionists contends that the revisionists had also sustained injuries in the said incident and there were cross versions of the inci dent. THE trial Court as well as appellate Court have not taken into consideration the injuries found on the person of the revisionists. It is further contended that the incident occurred between brothers and their wives and considering the nature of the injuries the punishment awarded is too severe. So far as the first contention of the learned Counsel for the revisionists is con cerned they do not appear to have taken a plea that they sustained injuries in the same incident as is evident from their statements under Section 313, Cr. P. C. as described by the trial court in its judgment. The accused also did not adduce any de fence evidence. Learned counsel contends that copies of the medical examiantion report were filed. Mere filing of the copies of the medical examiantion report was not enough unless the same were proved by examining the doctor or by being admitted by the prosecution. Besides this, the defence was required to plead or atleast by cross-examination create probability that the injuries sustained by the accused per sons were sustained in the same- incident in which the prosecution party sustaiaed injuries. In the absence of any such evi dence the revisionist can not take advan tage of any medical report filed by them. Therefore, there is no substance in the first contention of the learned counsel for the revisionists.;