- (1.)This Criminal Revision has been filed against the judgment and order dated 6.7.1983 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 258 of 1982 (Kunwar Pal and 2 others Vs. State of U.P.) passed by 10th Addl. Sessions Judge, Agra whereby he dismissed the appeal and upheld the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by Ist Judicial Magistrate in Criminal Case No. 293 of 1981 convicting the revisionist under section 323/34, 325 I.P.C. and sentencing them to undergo 6 months R.I. and one year R.I. respectively. They were also fined to Rs. 500/- each. One Smt. Ram Pyari was also convicted under the aforesaid sections but she was given the benefit of Probation of First Offender Act.
(2.)I have heard Sri Raghubir Singh holding brief of Mr. A. Jain. It appears from the record that a quarrel took place between two groups. The members of each group have beaten the members of the other group. Cross cases were registered for the incident. Convictions were passed in both cases. The appeals filed in these two cases were dismissed on merit. The accused of both the cases filed the separate revisions. The revision relating to cross case was admitted but later on it was dismissed.
(3.)The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the revisionist Kunwar Pal is now about 62 years whereas Tej Singh is about 82 years of age ; that Munna Lal was minor at the time of occurrence; that the members of the revisionists party also sustained injuries. Lastly he prayed that all the revisionists be given the benefit of Section 4 of Probation of First Offenders Act or the sentence of imprisonment be reduced to that of already undergone. In the case in hand Shiv Charan and Latoori two persons sustained injury. Both of the injured persons in addition to two other witnesses have supported the prosecution case. P.W. Shiv Charan sustained a fracture in his arm. The Doctor has proved the injuries. The evidence adduced in the trial court was reappreciated in criminal appeal. The conviction and sentence was affirmed in criminal appeal. The reasons given by the trial court as well as given by the appellate court are sound. In Criminal Revision the question of fact cannot be reagitated. The finding of fact cannot be interfered in this revision.