JAGDISH Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) VINOD Prasad, J. The three revisionists Jagdish, Mai Dayal, Neksoo have filed this revision challenging their conviction under Sections 325/34 and 323/34 I. P. C. and sentences of six months R. I. on first count and one month R. I. on second count recorded in Case No. 85 of 1983, State v. Jagdish and Ors. , by Vth Munsif Magistrate, Budaun. The two appeals preferred by them being Criminal Appeal No. 244 of 1984 connected with Criminal Appeal No. 246 of 1984 were dismissed by Vth Additional Sessions Judge, Budaun by a common judgment dated 28- 5-1985 confirming their said conviction and sentences recorded by the trial Court. Hence, this revision.

(2.) THE prosecution case in-capsulated was that on 2-11-1982 at 7. 30 a. m. in village Kaulhai, P. S. Sahaswan, District Budaun, accused Prabhoo Dayal, Mai Dayal, Neksoo and Jagdish belaboured the informant Hari Babu and his daughter Somwati, on the pretext that the field, which was being tried to be irrigated by the informant belonged to the accused and they will not permit the informant to irrigate it. F. I. R. was followed by an investigation which resulted into the charge-sheet against the revisionists accused. On 13-7-1983, Vth Munsif Magistrate, Budaun framed the charges against the accused under Sections 325/34 and 323/34 I. P. C. THE prosecution, in support of its case, examined P. W. I Hari Babu (informant of the case), P. W. 2 Smt. Somwati (injured), P. W. 3 Dr. R. C. Arya (who had examined the informant and Somwati on 2-11-1982 at 9. 30 a. m. and 10. 00 a. m. respectively ). P. W. 4 Khushi Ram, P. W. 5 Chandrapal Singh, Investigation Officer of the case and P. W. 6 Dr. I. P. Gupta who had conducted the X- ray of the fore-arm of Smt. Somwati and had found a fracture of her ulna bone.

(3.) IN the backdrop of the said facts, I have heard Sri Ghanshyam Joshi, learned Counsel for the revisionists as well as learned A. G. A. in opposition. Since Mai Dayal had died, as per the report of the concerned police station dated 3-10-2004, which has been sent to this Court through C. J. M. Budaun, the revision in his respect stands abated and is dismissed as such.