BISRAM SINGH Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE applicants Bisram Singh, Bahadur Singh, Mahinder Singh, Gangadin and Sobaran Singh were convicted by the Assistant Sessions Judge, Mainpuri, two of them under Section 148 and the other three under Section 147 and all of them under Section 307 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code. Bisram Singh and Bahadur Singh who were convicted under Section 148 have been sentenced to two years rigorous imprisonment thereunder and the other three who have been convicted under Section 147 to one year's rigorous imprisonment and all of them have been sentenced to four years' rigorous imprisonment under Section 307 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code. The applicants went up in appeal which was dismissed by the Sessions Judge and hence this application in revision by them.

(2.) THERE was an occurrence at about 8 a.m. on 23rd September, 1963. Saheb Singh's calf was let loose and had gone to the cattle trough of Bisram Singh and others to which objection was raised by them. Saheb Singh apologised for the same and was even prepared to compensate Bisram Singh, but he was not satisfied with it He held out a threat to Saheb Singh, called the other accused of the case and Bahadur Singh among them brought a kanta and a spear and while he handed over the kanta to Bisram Singh he retained the spear with him; the other accused were armed with lathis, and all the accused attacked Saheb Singh. Saheb Singh received injuries which were examined by Dr. K.M.L. Chaube the same evening at 5.30 p. m. The injury report is Ex. Ka. 5. Next day Saheb Singh got a report written bv one Darshan Lal. This report is Ex. Ka. 1 and it was sent to the police station at Mainpuri wherefrom it was forwarded to the police station concerned.

(3.) THE question whether the offence alleged against the applicants is made out on the basis of the evidence relied upon by the courts below is a pure question of fact which cannot be entered into in revision. Both the courts have believed the evidence which has been referred to in their judgments and their conclusions cannot be scrutinized afresh on a pure question of fact