NAIN SINGH Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) N. B. Asthana, J. The revisionists were convicted in criminal case No. 1919 of 1993 by III Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mecrut under Sections 323. 324/34,325/34 and 504 I. P. C. Each of them was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment of 6 months under Sections 323/34 I. P. C. , rigorous imprisonment of one year under Sections 324/34 I. P. C. to one year's R. I. and fine of Rs. 500/- for the offence under Sections 325/34 I. P. C. and to 3 months R. I. for the offence under Section 504 I. P. C. All the sentences were made to run concurrently. In default of payment of fine the revisionists were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment of 3 months. They filed criminal appeal No. 76/93 which was dismissed by VIII Addl. Sessions Judge, Meerut on 1. 4. 95. He also directed that in case fine is realised a sum of Rs. 1000/- would be paid as compensation to Hukum Singh. The convicts have now come to this Court in revision.

(2.) I have heard the learned counsel for the revisionists and have perused the material available on record.

(3.) FROM the judgment of the trial court it would appear that no evidence was adduced in the case regarding the pendency of the cross case. Copy of the F. I. R. copy of the injury report were not placed on record. The trial court was of the opinion that in the absence of these documents and in the absence of any evidence adduced by the revisionists regarding their version of the cross case. It cannot be said that the trial court committed any mistake in not believing the defence version of the case. The revisionists should have filed all the necessary papers including the F. I. R. and the injury report and should have proved them as required by law and should also have adduced some evidence to show that the incident took place in the manner as alleged by them and that in exercise of their right of private defence they inflicted injuries. It may be noted that P. W. 1 Smt. Kailashi in her cross examination gave out that while defending themselves 2 or 4 lathi blows were also inflicted upon the assailants. P. W. 3 Hukum Singh in his cross examination gave out that in order to save their lives they also wielded Lathi in self-defence. These statements would clearly explain the injury, if any, found on the revisionists.