Shiv Bharat and Others vs State of U.P. and Another

Kundan Singh, J.—Heard learned Counsel for the parties.

Khuddan was ploughing his plot No. 173/1/2. He was interrupted by accused persons while Bharat and Dashrath caught hold of him, accused Laloo and Shiv Bharat assaulted him with lathis causing injuries. The informant lodged the F.I.R. at 7.45 a.m. at police station, Khanpur and the injuries were examined at Primary Health Centre the same day at 10.30 a.m. and one lacerated would 1/2" x 1 /4" x skull deep on right side head, besides complaint of pain on left shoulder on left side front of abdomen.

The trial court believed the evidence of Prem (P.W. 1) and Hiraman (P.W. 2) and found the Appellants guilty of the offence u/s 323, I.P.C. and sentenced each of them to undergo simple imprisonment of two months and a fine of Rs. 5,00. In default of payment of fine, each of the accused was directed to undergo simple imprisonment of 15 days by judgment and order dated 2.11.91 passed by Sri Mukteshwar Prasad, Additional Munsif Magistrate, Saidpur, Ghazipur. On appeal the learned Sessions Judge maintained the conviction of the applicants but the sentence of imprisonment imposed upon Dashrath, Lalloo and Shiv Bharat was modified to the extent of a fine of Rs. 250 each. In default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for a week only and the sentence of imprisonment awarded to accused Bharat was modified to the extent of a fine of Rs. 1,000 and in default of payment of fine he was directed to undergo one month''s simple imprisonment. A sum of Rs. 500 was directed to be paid to the injured Khuddan as compensation, if the fine is realised as per the judgment and order dated 3.2.92 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 43 of 1991. The Appellants have filed this revision against the judgment and order of the court below.

The learned Counsel for the applicants could not point out any illegality or infirmity committee by the courts below in awarding conviction and sentence against the applicants.

In the last, learned Counsel for the applicants pointed out that the complainant sustained only one injury while two persons are said to have caught hold of him and two had caused that injury and it is not ascertained from the evidence adduced by the prosecution as to which of the accused caused that injury. Thus the case of the accused Bharat is not distinguishable from that of other co-accused. Ai such the amount of fine be reduced to equal amount which has been awarded to other co-accused.

Considering the facts and circumstances, I am of the view that Bharat is also entitled to the same direction which has been given to other co-accused persons. The amount of fine is reduced from 1,000 to Rs. 250 in the case of Bharat accused.

The revision is dismissed with the above modification.