Shashi Kant, J. - (1.) Herad Sri S.K.S. Baghel, learned counsel for the revisionist and learned A.G.A. for the State of U.P.
(2.) This Criminal Revision under Section 397/401 of Criminal Procedure Code has been preferred against the judgment dated 10.05.1989 passed by Sri R.L. Shankhwar, VIIth Assistant Sessions Judge, Agra in S.T. No. 147 of 1988 (State vs. Sri Kishan), under Section 308 IPC, Police Station Firozabad (North), District Agra, whereby the revisionist was convicted and sentenced under Section 308 IPC for 2 years rigorous imprisonment and against the judgment and order dated 13.11.1991 passed by Sri S.K. Saxena, Vth Additional Sessions Judge passed in Criminal Appeal No. 71/1989 (Sri Kishan vs. State) whereby Criminal Appeal has been dismissed and judgment and order of the Court below was affirmed.
(3.) Learned counsel for the revisionist contended that : 3.1. The Courts below has not taken into notice the considerable unexplained delay caused In lodging of FIR. There was no source of light to recognise the revisionist about 1:30 am in the dark night but the Courts below has not taken into consideration this material aspect no attention towards this material aspect of the case. 3.2. There was no injury on the person of the injured to make out the case punishable under section 308 IPC. 3.3. There is no independent corroboration of the statement of the complainant and the conviction based upon the single testomany is wrong and illegal. 3.4. The prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case beyond all the reasonable doubts. 3.5. The judgement and order passed by the courts below is against the weight of evidence on record as the Court below has failed to scrutinise and properly appreciate the prosecution evidence on record properly. 3.6. In any view of the matter no case under section 308 IPC. Is made out against the revisionist. 3.7. The Judgement and order passed by the courts below are wrong, illegal preverse and against the settled principle of law hence liable to be set aside. 3.8. The Impugned judgement and order is against the evidence on record as the courts below has failed to scrutinise the prosecution evidence on record properly.;