P.K.Jain - (1.) HEARD Sri I. N. Mishra, holding brief of Sri G. P. Dikshit, learned counsel for the revisionist and learned A.G.A. for the State.
(2.) THREE persons, namely, Afaq Ahmad, Lallan and Kalloo were convicted by the trial court under Sections 323, 504 and 506, I.P.C. and were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months, one month and six months each respectively. The criminal appeal preferred by them was partly allowed by the Sessions Judge. The conviction of appellant Afaq Ahmad was upheld. Sentence of imprisonment was converted to sentence of fine of Rs. 500 under Section 323, I.P.C., Rs. 500 under Section 506, I.P.C. and Rs. 200 under Section 504, I.P.C. The appeal of other appellants was allowed and their conviction was set aside and they were acquitted. The present revision has been preferred by Afaq Ahmad, challenging the judgment and order of the appellate court on the ground that there was serious conflict between medical evidence and oral evidence. The learned Sessions Judge disbelieved the prosecution case with regard to other co-accused and hence the revisionist could not be convicted on the same evidence. Lastly, that the charges were framed with regard to different facts whereas the evidence was with regard to other facts. Learned A.G.A. contends that the appellate court has given sound reasons for arriving at the conclusion that the guilt of the revisionist was proved by the evidence on record.
(3.) HAVING gone through the material on record as well as judgment of the appellate court, there does not appear any material conflict between the medical evidence and eye-witnesses account though there is some exaggeration on the part of the witnesses. There is no law to disbelieve the testimony of witnesses with regard to all the accused, if it is not believed with regard to some of the accused persons. Participation of some of the accused person can be believed while disbelieving participation of others. Nothing has been shown to me to arrive at the conclusion that the evidence was led with regard to different facts. There is no substance in this revision and the same is dismissed. The stay order dated 27.8.1984 is hereby vacated.;