Court No. - 45
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1161 of 1991 Revisionist :- Vijai Pal Sharma Opposite Party :- State And Other Counsel for Revisionist :- H.K. Sharma Counsel for Opposite Party :- A.G.A.,M.C. Singh
Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh-I,J.
List has been revised.
None is appearing from the side of the revisionist.
The notices were served upon opposite party nos. 2 to 3 as per office report but none has appeared from the side of the opposite party nos. 2 to 4 also.
It appears that the revisionist has lost interest in continuing this matter as he has not appeared in this matter since it was filed i.e. from 6.9.1991, therefore, it is deemed proper that this revision be decided on merits by the court itself.
This revision has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 27.7.1991 passed by the VIIth Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bulandshahr in Crl. Appeal No. 4 of 1991 acquitting the opposite party nos. 2 to 3 after setting aside the judgment and order dated 18.1.1991 passed by the Additional Munsif Magistrate in Complaint Case No. 737 of 1990, whereby he had convicted the opposite party nos. 2 to 4 under Section 323/504 & 506 IPC sentencing them each with three months rigorous imprisonment under Section 323 IPC, fine of Rs. 500/- each, under Section 504 IPC, six months rigorous imprisonment each under Section 506 IPC and also directed that these sentences shall run concurrently.
I have gone through the impugned judgment and find that there is no infirmity in the impugned judgment because the learned Sessions Judge in his judgment, has recorded that according to prosecution version, the opposite party no. 2- Pooran Lal and opposite party no. 3- Roshan Lal were alleged to have lathis in their hands, while opposite party no. 4 Satish was alleged to have Favda in his hand at the time of occurrence but despite them having those weapons in their hands, it was mentioned in complaint as well as deposed by the witnesses that mar-peet was done with hand & fists, therefore, learned appellate court has rightly held that this was improbable that the assailants were having aforementioned weapons in their hand and yet they did not use them and instead they used their hand only in beating the revisionist. It has also been noted that there is no evidence on record to the effect that these assailants had thrown away their weapons and, thereafter, had beaten the revisionist by hand.
Further, it is recorded in the said judgment that the 'nali', which was recorded to be the reason, because of which mar-peet took place between both the sides, was found to be not in existence because tube-well connection of the accused-opposite parties was dis-connected in the year 1994 while the occurrence is alleged to have taken place on 17.1.1987. It is also recorded in the impugned judgment that Beerpal, PW-2 stated that the incident of mar-peet continued for ten minutes approximately while PW-3, Shrawan Kumar stated that mar-peet continued only for five minutes. The Learned appellate court below has held that it is improbable that mar-peet, even if it continued for five to ten minutes would not result in injured receiving any injury. These findings appear to have been given on the basis of proper appreciation of evidence.
No infirmity is found in the impugned order, hence, the present revision deserves to be dismissed and is, accordingly, dismissed.
No order as to cost.
Order Date :- 28.7.2018 A.P. Pandey