RAM BHAROSEY Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Criminal revision is directed against the judgment and order passed on 1-9-1984 by Mr. D. N. Shukla. the then Sessions Judge. Farrukhabad. The learned Judge was disposing of the criminal appeal no. 330 of 1983 and it was against the judgment and order of Mr. Daljinder Pal Singh 1st Addl. Munsif Magistrate, Kannauj, Farrukhabad dated 22-7-1983 through which the present revisionists had been convicted under sections 323/34 and 325/34 IPC and sentenced to three months rigorous imprisonment each on the first count and one year's rigorous imprisonment each on the second count. The learned Magistrate had directed the sentences to run concurrently.

(2.) BY his impugned judgment dated 1-9-1984 the learned Sessions Judge. Farrukhabad mentioned in one of the paragraphs in the body of the judgment that the appeal shall fail on merits, but in the operative portion he allowed it in part, maintained the convictions u/Sec.325/34 IPC, but reduced the sentence to imprisonment for six months and fine of Rs. 500/- for each of the appellants and further directed that in default of the payment of fine, the defaulter shall undergo three months rigorous imprisonment. In this manner as a result of the disposal of this appeal, the conviction ami sentence under section 323/34 IPC were not maintained. At least the operative portion of the judgment does not speak about the same.

(3.) INJURIES had been sustained by both the father and the son and the two doctors have been examined in this case along with their reports. The case is satisfactorily proved beyond doubt and in my opinion, the sentences awarded also can not be said to be harsh. The learned Sessions Judge has already reduced the sentence under section 325/34 IPO. The case does not require any further re-consideration on the question of sentence, on which point alone the revision was admitted