CHHABI NATH Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri K.N. Pandey, and Santosh Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for the revisionist, learned A.G.A for the State and perused the record.

(2.) This criminal revision has been preferred by the convicted accused-revisionist against the judgment and order of conviction and sentencing dtd. 28/8/1992 passed by Judicial Magistrate-I, Bareilly in Criminal Case No. 884 of 1992 - State Vs. Chhabi Nath & Ors., by which the accused-revisionist was convicted under Sec. 326 I.P.C and was sentenced to three years rigorous imprisonment without awarding any amount of fine and also against the judgment and order passed by Additional District & Sessions Judge-IX, Bareilly in Criminal Appeal No. 86 of 1992-Chhabi Nath Vs. State of U.P., by which the learned A.S.J. has affirmed the conviction of the convicted revisionist but reduced the sentence from 3 years to 1 1/2 years rigorous imprisonment and Rs.1,000.00 fine with default stipulation to undergo three months additional incarceration in case of non deposition of fine.

(3.) In revision the convict-revisionist has taken ground that the lower court and the lower appellate court have not considered the statements of the complainant and the witnesses which were contradictory against the first information report. The learned trial court has acquitted the co-accused on the basis of doubtful statements of complainant and the witnesses, but the same benefit has not been given to the revisionist. The conviction of the revisionist is against the weight of evidence on record, which is bad in law. The sentence is too severe, hence the revision be allowed and the order of conviction, sentencing and fine as well be set aside.