Full Judgment
1. his criminal revision has been directed against the judgment and order dated 12.7.1985 passed by VIIth Additional Sessions Judge, Moradabad in Criminal Appeal No.29 of 1984. The appellate court has partly allowed the appeal and the judgment and order dated 20.1.1984 passed by IInd Additional Munsif Magistrate, Amroha, District Moradabad in Criminal Case No. 71 of 1983 has been modified to this extent that the sentence of imprisonment awarded to the revisionist Tabarak Ali for offence under section 326/34 has been reduced to R.I. for six months and to pay fine of Rs.1000/- but the sentence of the revisionist for offence under section 324/34 has been reduced to the imprisonment till rising of the court and to pay fine of Rs.1000/-.
2. The brief facts arising out of the case are that a grove situated in plot no.311 area 25 decimal belongs to Ali Akhtar Complainant. The accused Shahid Ali had filed a suit regarding the said grove against the complainant, but he had lost his case due to which he developed illwil against the complainant and his brother. On 30.8.1982 at about 9.00 A.M. the complainant Ali Akhtar and his brother Koshar Raza went to look after their grove and when they reached there in the grove, they saw accused Shahid Ali, Tabarak Ali, Shamshad and Kalim ploughing the land of the said grove, to which the complainant and his brother objected, but accused persons did not stop ploughing the field rather they abused them. The complainant and his brother again asked them not to abuse, at which the accused persons, who caught hold of the complainant Ali Akhtar, accused Tabarak Ali started to beat him with spade, accused Shamshad also caught hold of Koshar Raza and accused Shamshad gave him beating with spade as well as accused Kalim and Shamshad also gave beating to the complainant and his brother with kicks and fists. On the alarm raised by the complainant and his brother, the witnesses Kalua Abbas and Mukhtar Hussain reached the spot, at which accused persons ran away from the spot. The complainant and his brother sustained incised and blunt object injuries inflicted by the accused persons and went to police station whereat the complainant Ali Akhtar lodged an F.I.R. at P.S. Naugawan Sadat, on the basis of which a case was registered and injuries of the complainant and his brother were got examined by the doctor.
3. The charges under section 324 read with section 34 and section 326 read with section 34 of I.P.C. were framed against all the four accused persons, who pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The prosecution examined P.W.1 Dr. Ashok Kumar Jain, P.W.2 Ali Akhtar, P.W.3 Kaushar Raza, P.W.4 Kalua Abbas, P.W. 5 Mukhtar Hussain and P.W. 6 S.I., Raghubir Singh in all. The statements of accused persons were recorded under section 313 of Cr.P.C. No evidence was led in defence.
4. The learned trial court found all four accused persons guilty under section 324 read with section 34 of I.P.C. and 326 read with section 34 of I.P.C. and convicted them. Each of the accused was sentenced under section 324 read with section 34 I.P.C. to under go R.I. for one year and under section 326 read with section 34 I.P.C. to under go R.I. for two years. Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently.
5. The judgment and order dated 20.1.1984 passed by IInd Additional Munsif Magistrate, Amroha, District Moradabad was challenged by all the four accused persons in Criminal Appeal No.29 of 1984, which was partly allowed and accused Kalim Akhtar, Samshad and Shahid Ali were acquitted of the charge under section 326 read with 34 I.P.C. but appeal was dismissed for rest of the charges, however, accused Kalim Akhatar and Shamshad were sentenced under section 324 read with 34 I.P.C. to pay a fine of Rs.500/- each and in default they were directed to under go R.I. for six months. The accused Shahid under section 324 read with 34 of I.P.C. was sentenced to pay fine of Rs.1000/- and also imprisonment till the rising of the court and in default of payment of fine he was further directed to undergo R.I. for one year. The appeal of accused Tabarak Ali was dismissed but his sentence was reduced holding him guilty under section 324 read with section 34 I.P.C. and he was sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- and also imprisonment till rising of the court and in default he was further directed to under go R.I. for one year. He was also held guilty under section 326 read with 34 I.P.C. and sentenced to under go R.I. for six months and was also directed to pay fine of Rs.1000/- and in default of payment of fine he was further directed to under go R.I. for one year.
6. The appellant Tabarak Ali has challenged the said judgment passed by the appellate court through this revision. The learned counsel for the revisionist has contended that the learned appellate court has committed illegality in not formulating the points for determination and in not recording reasons in support of his findings. It is further contended that the prosecution witnesses have been found inimical and partisan with no corroborative independent evidence and thus the conviction and sentence are liable to be set aside. No substance is found in contentions of learned counsel for the revisionist. No illegality or irregularity has been committed by the appellate court in recording the findings against the revisionist. The learned courts below have rightly appreciated the evidence adduced on behalf of the prosecution and no illegality has been committed by the courts below in appreciating the same. In appeal no points for determination are required to be formulated under the provisions of Cr.P.C. The testimony of prosecution witnesses has been corroborated by the medical evidence. The findings recorded by the courts below are found to be acceptable and in accordance with law. The findings regarding the conviction of the revisionist for offences under section 324/34 I.P.C. or 326/34 I.P.C. cannot be interfered in this revision by re-appreciating the evidence because reappraisal of the evidence is not permissible in revision. There are concurrent findings recorded by the courts below regarding the facts of the case and the courts below have rightly arrived at their conclusion in holding the revisionist guilty for offences, which cannot be interfered with.
7. Consequently, this revision against the conviction of the revisionist for offences under section 326/34 and 324/34 I.P.C. lacks merit and is dismissed.
8. Let a copy of this judgment be sent to the trial court for compliance forthwith.