- (1.) P. K. Singh, J. Heard learned coun sel Mr. S. A Shah for the revisionists at length and the learned A. G. A. for the State.
(2.) LEARNED counsel for the revisionists has argued against the merit of the finding recorded by the Courts below on the grounds that there was no evidence to satisfy that the revisionists were aggressors in this case and that there was any motive for the incident. Further he has argued that there is delay of forty eight hours in lodging the first information report. It has been alleged by the learned counsel for the revisionists that the Courts below have not taken due notice to these infirmities in the prosecution story. Further, it has been argued that the com mon intention of all the revisionists in caus ing grievous injury is not proved from the record. On these grounds he challenges the conviction of the revisionists under Sec tions 147, 323/149 and 325/149, I. P. C, Be sides, the learned counsel has argued that the incident has become more than seven teen years old so if the sentence of fine is awarded to the revisionists it will met the ends of the justice. The trial Magistrate's judgment passed by the Ilnd Additional Munsif-Magistrate, Chandausi in Criminal Case No. 118 of 1982, dated 25th July,1983 and the appellate Court's judgment passed by the Sessions Judge, Moradabad dated 31st July,1984 have been carefully perused. Both the Courts below have discussed the evidence of victim witnesses who had received injuries in this Marpeet and the medical evidence of the doctor besides the evidence of X-ray technician to come to a conclusion about the nature of offence proved in this case. There is clear finding by both the Courts below that all the six ac cused persons attacked Sumeri who had both the Courts below that all the six ac cused persons attacked Sumeri who had gone to their house to protest against the chasing of his son Suresh by the dog of the revisionists Siya Ram and on this protest the accused persons became angry and started assaulting Sumeri and when Channi, Ram Mahesh, Umraon and Suresh tried to inter vene and save Sumeri then they were also attacked and assaulted by the accused per sons. The Courts below have further recorded clear finding that after assault the victims were prevented from going to the police station and all the routes leading to the police station were blocked by the ac cused persons, as a result of which the victim could not take help of the police and report the incidence to the police station. They have further noted in the judgment that the matter was reported to the Gram Pradhan who tried to get the parties compromise but the accused persons did not agree to the proposal and so the attempt of Gram Prad han failed. These clear findings are based on cogent discussions made in the judgments of the Courts below. This Court does not find any infirmity in the reasons given by the Courts below for recording a finding of con viction on these points. The Courts below have discussed the point of common inten tion and it has been rightly held by the Courts below that in this case it was a case of unlawful assembly where more than five persons had participated in the assault and their indiscriminate beating must carry the responsibility. In this way the provisions of Section 149, I. P. C. are clearly applicable for the help of making all the accused-persons guilty for the same offence. Accordingly, this Court does not find any impropriety or illegality in the finding of conviction of the revisionists under Sections 147,323/149 and 325/149, I. P. C. Coming to the sentence awarded to the revisionists the fact that they were in custody for near about two months after the dismissal of the appeal is disclosed from the record. In this case the injuries caused to Channi and Umraon disclosed that Channi had received fracture on the left ring finger at the top and Umraon got a fracture on the tibia. The nature of injuries are to cause incapacity in the limb of working and moving. Further, it is clear from the im pugned judgments of the Courts below that the victims are Harijans and the revisionists have taken offence of their protest against the chasing by their dog on the victim. These clear facts are there which does not justify any interference in the sentence awarded to the revisionists. It is difficult to accept the argument of the learned counsel for the revisionists to convert the sentence of im prisonment into sentence of fine.
(3.) THE revision petition does not dis close merit and the same is dismissed. THE period of custody of about two months will be adjusted in the term of sentence. Revision dismissed. .;