SUKHDEO Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) S. R. Bhargava, J. In connection with incident of 23-2-1987 trial Court convicted Sukhdeo, Ram Sewak, Shripal Singh, Mukesh Awasthi, Rakshpal Singh, Yadav and Ram Dayal with offences under Sections 147,332,353,224,225 and 323/149, IPC and sentenced each of them to rigorous imprisonment for six months under Section 147, to rigorous imprisonment for six months under Section 332, to rigorous imprisonment for six months under Section 353, to rigorous imprisonment for three months under Section 224, to rigorous imprisonment for three months under Section 225 and to rigorous imprisonment for three months under Section 323/149, I. P. C. Trial Magistrate acquitted them of the charge under Section 506, I. P. C. All of them went up in appeal. Learned lower appellate Court found the incident to be correct but further found that identity of Shripal Singh, Mukesh Awasthi and Rakshpal accused the miscreants had not been established beyond reasonable doubt. On appreciation of evidence he found that participation of Sukhdeo Singh, Ram Dayal and Ram Sewak was established by reliable evidence. Consequently he allowed the appeal in part and set aside the conviction and sentence of Shripal Singh, Mukesh Awasthi and Rakshapal Singh. He set aside the conviction and sentences of all the three of them and further conviction and sentences of Sukhdeo, Ram Dayal and Ram Sewak for offences under Sections 224, 225 and 323/149, I. P. C. He confirmed the convic tion and sentences of Sukhdeo, Ram Dayal and Ram Sewak for offences under Sections 347,332 and 353, I. P. C.

(2.) BEING aggrieved all the three of them have come up in revision before this Court, so far as identity of Ram Dayal is concerned there is no doubt. But identity of Sukhdeo and Ram Sewak was challenged in revision. This challenge requires reappreciation of evidence. Learned lower appellate Court clearly distinguished the cases of the three accused who were granted benefit of doubt for want of identity. I am of the opinion that so far as conviction is concerned the revision requires no interference.

(3.) A copy of the order be issued to the learned Counsel for the revisionists on payment of usual charges within 24 hours. Revision partly allowed. .