- (1.) D. K. Trivedi, J. The present criminal revision is directed against the judgment and order dated 24-2-1984 passed by IX Addl. Munsif Magistrate, Gonda convicting the revisionists under Section 147,323/149, 324/149 I. P. C. and awarding a sentence of one year's R. I. , Six months' R. I. and one year R. I. respective ly. Revisionist Ram Badal and Satish were further convicted under Section 148, I. P. C. and were sentenced to six months' R. I. each. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently. After convicting the ac cused persons, the learned Magistrate released revisionists/accused-persons Kedar and Mathura under Section 4 of First 'offenders of Probation Act subject to each of their furnishing two sureties and a personal bond in the like amount for maintaining peace and good conduct for a period of one year. Aggrieved by the said judgment and order the accused-persons filed an appeal before the learned Sessions Judge, Gonda but the same was also dis missed by the learned VIth Addl. Sessions Judge, Gonda vide order dated 7-5-1984. Aggrieved by both these orders, the revisionists preferred the instant criminal revision challenging these orders.
(2.) THE learned Counsel for the revisionists firstly tried to point out some discrepancies in the statements of the wit nesses but finding it difficult that both the Courts below after scrutinizing the evidence recorded finding that the wit nesses are reliable, he pointed out that in any case the conviction under Section 324 I. P. C. is not proper and for remaining sec tions, a sentence for the period already undergone and imposing some fine is proper sentence. As regards the question of convic tion under Section 324 I. P. C. is concerned, there is nothing on the record to show that there was any injury caused by Bailam or Pharsa. The eye-witnesses, no doubt, stated that the accused-persons were armed with Bailam and Pharsa but the doctor who examined the injuries of the injured-persons clearly mentioned lacerated and abrasions on their bodies. The doctor did not find any incised or punctured wound on the body of the injured-persons. The doctor in the injury report has mentioned the injury No. 1 as incised wound but thereafter, after cutting the same has been mentioned as 'lacerated wound' and on this basis the learned court below accepted the prosecution case to the extent that the injuries were caused by Ballara and Pharsa and stated that the accused- persons are liable to be convicted under Sections 324,148 I. P. C. also. How ever, the accused-persons were present on the spot and they caused injuries with 'danda' and Lathis and therefore, in my opinion case under Section 323 and 147 I. P. C. is proved against the accused-per sons except accused Ram Badai and Satish. The witnesses in their statements have admitted that accused Ram Badal was armed with 'pharsa' and Satish was armed with 'ballam' but as pointed out above no such injury was found on the body of in jured-persons and therefore, it cannot be said that the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused Ram Badal and Salish beyond reasonable doubt. The testimony of the eye-witnesses in respect of these two accused-persons did not find support from the medical evidence, hence they are en titled to get benefit of doubt. In these circumstances, accused Ram Badal and Satish are hereby ac quitted of the charges levelled against them.
(3.) AS regards the conviction of other accused-persons is concerned, their case is consistently supported by the eye- wit nesses and finds corroboration from the medical evidence, therefore, ac cused/revisionists No. 3 to 7 namely Jwala Prasad, Mathura Prasad, Kamla Prasad, Satdeo and Kedar are found guilty under Sections 323/149 and 147 I. P. C. They have-been convicted under Sections 147 and 323/149 I. P. C. and have been sentenced to one year's R. I. and six months R. I. respec tively by the learned Magistrate on 29-2-1984. The revisionists thereafter, filed an appeal before the Sessions Judge and thereafter they were released on bail. Sub sequently, their appeal was dismissed and aggrieved by the said order, the revisionists filed the present revision before this Court in 1984 and since then they are on bail. Out of these revisionists, two persons Kedar and Mathura have already been granted the benefit of Section 4 of First Offenders of Probation Act and the learned Magistrate has not given any reason as to why the benefit of First Offenders of Probation Act has not been given to the remaining revisionists. Keeping in mind all these facts, now it will be proper if the revisionists are convicted under Section 323/149 and 147 I. P. C. and are awarded a sentence for the period already undergone with a fine of Rs. 500 each. They are directed to deposit the aforesaid fine within two months from today. Accused/revisionists Ram Badal and Satish are acquitted of the charges levelled against them. Accordingly the present revision in respect of ac cused/revisionists Jwala Prasad, Mathura Prasad, Kamla Prasad, Satdeo and Kedar is partly allowed as mentioned above. Revision partly allowed. .;