SIA RAM Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(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.

(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. .