Jadunath Singh and Others vs State of U.P.

Vinod Prasad, J.—Heard Sri P.K. Dubey learned Counsel for the revisionists and learned A.G.A.

Revisionists are aggrieved by their conviction order dated 9.6.2008 passed by Judicial Magistrate I, Shahjahanpur, in Criminal Case No. 1599 of 2006 State v. Jadunath Singh and Ors.. by which Judicial Magistrate has convicted them under Sections 323/34 and 325/34 I.P.C. For the first charge, trial Magistrate has imposed sentence of six months SI and for the second charge, two years SI with fine of Rs. 1,000/-each, in default of payment of fine, fifteen days further imprisonment. Both sentences have been ordered to run concurrently. It is recorded that by the same judgment, trial Magistrate acquitted revisionists for charge u/s 504 I.P.C. He was further pleased to give revisionists benefit of set off u/s 328 Code of Criminal Procedure

Aggrieved by their conviction, revisionists preferred Criminal Appeal No. 26 of 2008 before Sessions Judge, Shahjahanpur, which was transferred to the court of Additional Sessions Judge, court No. 8 Shahjahanpur. Lower appellate court, dismissed the appeal and confirmed trial court''s order of conviction and sentence, vide impugned judgment and order dated 4.3.2011. Hence this revision.

Material on record indicates that on 19.6.2003 at 9:45 a.m., report was lodged by Raja Ram, after getting it scribed by Ratipal Singh, stating therein that Khushi Ram had got a grocery shop in the village. Rs. 22/-was due on revisionist No. 2 Guddu. Khushi Ram demanded his money back. This enraged the accused persons who all surrounded brother of Khushi Ram namely Ram Chandra injured, on 16.6.2003 at 7:00 a.m., when he was carrying milk to deliver it to Shahjahanpur, and belaboured him with blunt objects. Hue and cry raised by Ram Chandra attracted Khushi Ram and Ram Autar at the scene of assault, who both witnessed the incident. Ram Chandra was rushed to Government Hospital where he was admitted. Subsequent thereto, first information report was lodged as Crime No. 108 of 2003 under Sections 323, 504, 325 I.P.C. in which crime ultimately the revisionists were charge sheeted.

Trial Magistrate summoned the accused revisionists and charged them for offences under Sections 325, 323, 504 I.P.C. To support of the said charge, prosecution examined informant Raja Ram PW-1, Ram Chandra PW-2, Ram Autar PW-3, Ram Niwas PW-4, and Awadhesh Singh PW-5, who had registered the FIR and prepared Chik FIR and G.D. entry which has been proved by him. Dr. R.K. Awasthi PW-6 is Radiologist who had proved X-ray report. Dr. N.K. Singh PW-7 who had examined injured, was also examined by prosecution during the trial who has testified regarding injuries sustained by the injured Ram Chandra..

In their statement u/s 313 Code of Criminal Procedure , accused persons denied incriminating circumstances appearing against them in the prosecution evidences and pleaded denial defence.

Trial Magistrate, after marshalling of facts and looking into evidences tendered before him, came to the conclusion that prosecution has successfully established guilt against accused persons, therefore, convicted and sentenced them as has already been recorded hereinabove. Aggrieved by the aforesaid conviction and sentence, appeal was preferred by revisionists before lower appellate court and as mentioned above, it too was dismissed by Additional Sessions Judge, court No. 8, Shahjahanpur, Hence this revision.

I have heard learned Counsel for the revisionists at a great length.

No illegality and legal infirmity could be pointed out by learned cousnel for the revisionists. It is a case where for a paltry amount of Rs. 22/-, accused persons surrounded Ram Chandra who had no axe to grind against them and assaulted him severely causing grievous injuries. This act of the accused persons was without any motive and for no rhyme and reason. Trial Magistrate has rightly marshaled evidences and drew conclusions which have been affirmed by lower appellate court.

In view of the above matter, it cannot be said that conviction of revisionists recorded by trial Magistrate as has been confirmed by the lower appellate court suffers from any error of law.

Coming to sentence part, it is to be concluded that accused persons/ revisionists assaulted Ram Chandra with blunt objects and have caused him several grievious and serious injuries. Evidence by PW-6 Dr. R.K. Awasthi indicates that X-ray was conducted on body of the injured Ram Chandra vide X-ray No. 1070 on 16.6.2003. His wrist and forearms bones of right hand were found fractured. Right side chest bone was fractured. Tenth rib of left side chest was also fractured and left hand had fracture on tip of radius and first metacarpal bone. Such was the belaboring causing grievous injuries to a person who had not done anything against accused persons, who are the present revisionist which indicates their criminal intent.

In such a view, I do not find any error of law in imposition of sentence as well. This revision being meritless, is dismissed.