SURENDRA PAL Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) G. D. Dubey, J. This revision has been preferred against the judgment and order of 12th Additional Sessions Judge, Meerut, upholding the conviction of the revisionists under Section 323, IPC only and reducing the sentence of a fince of Rs. 750 only.

(2.) IT has been urged that originally a complaint was filed against four persons. The two ladies were acquitted by the trial court. The revisionists were found guilty for the offences under Sections 323 and 506, IPC under each of the counts, they were sentenced to three months' RI under Section 323, IPC they were also sentenced to a fine of Rs. 500 each also, but out of this amount Rs. 200/- was to be paid to the complainant. The lower appellate court had upheld the conviction and modified the order as stated above.

(3.) THE contention of learned counsel for the revisionists is not correct. It transpires from the very beginning i. e. from the stage of the statement of the complainant under Section 200 Cr. P. C. the role of catching hold of the complainant was assigned to the two ladies accused. THE lower court had given benefit of doubt to these two lady accused. THE ingredient of Section 506, IPC was also not found established. As regards the two applicants, the facts relating to their voluntarily causing hurt to the complainant was found established, are concurrent findings in this respect. Hence this court will not interfere unless it is shown that the findings recorded by the two courts below are perverse. THEre is no material on record to substantiate any contention that the findings of the two courts below are not based on evidence produced before the trial court.