HARGOVIND Vs. STATE OF U.P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the revisionists, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

(2.) This revision has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 30.6.1999 passed by VIIth Additional Sessions Judge, Bijnor in Criminal Appeal No. 07 of 1999, confirming the conviction and sentence of one year and fine of Rs.500/- to each of the revisionist under Section 147 IPC and six months rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.500/- each under Section 323/149 IPC passed by IVth Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bijnor in Criminal Case No. 1175 of 1998: State Vs. Hargovind and others. The Appellate Court further awarded one year Rigorous Imprisonment and fine of Rs.500/- each under Section 148 IPC, six months Rigorous Imprisonment and fine of Rs.500/- each under Section 324/149 IPC, one year Rigorous Imprisonment and fine of Rs.500/- each under Section 325/149 IPC and six months rigorous imprisonment under Section 506 (2) IPC.

(3.) The revisionists have challenged the impugned judgment on the ground that learned court below has illegally convicted them despite that there is material controversy in the statements of witnesses regarding place of incident, hence conviction is against the evidence on record. The place of occurrence could not be ascertained as the Investigating Officer failed to produce blood stained earth recovered from the place of incident. Moreover, the learned appellate court illegally enhanced the conviction and sentence under Sections 148, 324/149, 506(2) IPC and 325/149 IPC without setting aside the order of acquittal of learned trial court and there was no appeal filed on behalf of the State. Further, since no charge is made out against the revisionists, there was no need to confirm the conviction and sentence after lapse of eight years and fine was sufficient to meet the ends of justice. Therefore, conviction and sentence is liable to be set aside and the revisionists are liable to be acquitted.