KALLU AND ORS. Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C. is directed against the judgment and order passed by Shri Sant Lal Ram, H.J.S., the then Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge, SC and ST Act, Barabanki in Criminal Appeal No. 28 of 1999 : Kallu and two Ors. v. State of U.P. whereby the appeal preferred against the judgment and order dated 29.5.1999 passed by Shri S.C. Sharma, P.C.S.(J), A.C.J.M., Barabanki in Criminal Case No. 917 of 1997 (Crime No. 17 of 1997) : State v. Kallu convicting and sentencing the appellants for the offence punishable under Section 323/34 to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months, for the offence punishable under Section 324/34 to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months, for the offence punishable under Section 504 I.P.C. to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months and for the offence punishable under Section 506 I.P.C. to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months, was dismissed and the above conviction and sentence were confirmed.

(2.) PROSECUTION version as is revealing from the record is that on 2.5.1997, at about 5.00 p.m., Pancham, brother of the first informant Ramji, resident of Atrauli, which lies within the circle of police station Zaidpur, District Barabanki had gone on the fields for grazing the cattle. It is further stated that accused Kallu, Arju and Jagjeevan (revisionists herein) reached there having lathi and banka with them and started abusing Pancham. On an altercation, Laxmi Narain and others reached there. The accused persons started beating Pancham as a result of which he sustained injuries. This incident was also witnessed by Ram Sewak and Badlu who rescued Pancham from the accused persons. Thereafter, accused persons left the place of incident abusing and intimidating Pancham. A report of the said incident was lodged by Ramji, complainant at the police station and Pancham was got medically examined. The investigation of the case was taken up by Sub Inspector Shiv Sharan Singh Parihar who after investigation, submitted the chargesheet against the accused persons for the offence punishable under Section 323, 324, 504, 506 I.P.C. The accused were charged for the said offences by the learned trial court who pleaded not guilty to be charged and claimed to be tried.

(3.) I have heard the learned Counsel for the revisionists as well as learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record of the case. The revision is not being pressed on the legality of conviction by the learned Counsel for the revisionists. It has been rightly done. Learned trial court had recorded the statements of seven witnesses in all out of whom two witnesses were independent eye witnesses and one was injured witness. The rest were formal witnesses. All the witnesses have supported the prosecution version. There was nothing in their testimony to disbelieve the prosecution version or to doubt the veracity of the prosecution story. Learned appellate court also on appraisal of the evidence, reached to the conclusion that appellants had been rightly convicted and sentenced. Thus there is concurrent finding that the accused appellants had committed the offence in question and they were rightly convicted.