- (1.) P. K. Jain, J. Heard Sri P. N. Misra, learned counsel for the revisionists and the learned A. G. A.
(2.) THE revision has been heard finally at the admission stage and is being finally disposed of. Revisionists, Jang Bahadur and Nanhey alias Om Shankar, were convicted by the trial Court under Sections 325 and 323, I. P. C. and each of them were sen tenced to undergo R. I. for one and a half year and six months respectively on each count and further to pay fine of Rs. 2000/-and Rs. 500/- respectively on each count. Criminal Appeal No. 40 of 1996 preferred by the revisionists was dismissed by the appellate Court. This revision is pressed on the question of quantum of sentence and on ground that conviction under Section 325 I. P. C. cannot be maintained. The main contention is that lathi was used in com mission of the crime and it is not disclosed as to whose lathi blow had caused grievous hurt. It was not disclosed that there was common intention to cause grievous hurt. It is contended that at best the revisionists could have been convicted under Section 323 read with Section34, I. P. C. It is further contended that the sentence awarded is too severe. Learned A. G. A. contends that the judgment and order of the Courts below are justified by the evidence ad duced before the trial Court.
(3.) PROSECUTION case is that the revisionists suddenly assaulted the victim and on account of their assault the victim received several injuries out of which one was grievous. There is no finding as to whose lathi blow had caused grievous in jury and there is also no evidence to show that there was common intention to cause grievous injury. In the circumstances the judgment and order of the Courts below convicting the revisionists under Section 325, I. P. C. cannot be sustained. The revisionists could be sentenced only under Sections 323/34, I. P. C.;