SANTOSH KUMAR NIGAM Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application for revision against the judgment and order dated 5. 6. 84 passed by Sri B. K. Rathi, VII Addl. Sessions Judge, Kanpur in Criminal Appeal No. 76 of 1983 (Santosh Kumar v. State of U. P.) under Sections 323/504/506 I. P. C. 2. The facts leading up to this application for revision may briefly be stated as follows: The wives of complainant, Krishna Saran Nigam, and the accused Santosh Kumar are real sisters. According to the case of the complainant he wan abused and assaulted with Dandas by Santosh Kumar on 20. 8. 81 at about 8. 00 p. m. when the complainant was going to the dairy of Motilal for the purposes of purchasing milk. The complainant sustained injuries. His injuries were medically examined and F. I. R. was also lodged and as the police took no action a complaint was filed. 3. The accused was summoned by the Magis trate concerned and after his trial the accused was held guilty for the offences under Sec. 323/504/506 I. P. C. Learned Magistrate has sentenced Santosh Kumar to six months R. I. and a fine of Rs. 250. 00 for the offence under Section 323 I. P. C. six months R. I. for the offence under Section 504 I. P. C. and six months R. I. for the offence under Section 506 I. P. C. out of the fine of Rs. 250. 00 a sum of Rs. 150. 00 was ordered to be paid to Sri Krishna Saran Nigam by way of compensation. 4. Aggrieved by the judgment and order of the Magistrate Santosh Kumar went to appeal and his appeal - Criminal Appeal No. 76 of 1983 was partly allowed by Sri B. K. Rathi, VII Addl. Sessions Judge, Kanpur on 5. 6. 84. Learned Sessions Judge set aside the conviction of the applicant for the offences under Sections 504 and 506 I. P. C. The con viction of the applicant under Section 323 I. P. C. was maintained but the sentence was converted into a sentence of fine to Rs. 200. 00 only. 5. Aggrieved by the judgment and order of the learned Sessions Judge Santosh Kumar has come in revision. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. On a perusal of the judgment of the trial court and the appellants court it appears that there was enough justification for the courts below to reach to the con clusion that the applicant was guilty of offence under Section 323 I. P. C. only and a fine of Rs. 200. 00 has been, imposed. It cannot be said that the sentence was excessive. Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the applicant was a government servant and his conviction in the present case should not affect his service career. Reliance has been placed upon the case of Rajbir v. State of Haryana, AIR 1985 S. C, 1978 wherein the conviction of the appellant Rajbir was main tained under Section 323 I. P. C. and he was given benefit of Section 3 of the probation of First Offenders Act, 1958 and it was also observed that the conviction of the appel lant Rajbir would not affect his service. 7. In the circumstances of the present case I am of the view that the conviction of the appellant for the offence under Section 323 I. P. C. should not in any way affect his service career. With these observations the application for revision is dismissed. The fine of Rs. 200. 00 has been deposited and the same shall be paid to the complainant, Krishna Saran Nigam, as directed by the learned Sessions Judge vide his order dated 5. 6. 84. Revision Dismissed .