JUDGMENT

GUPTA, J.:—The Assistant Sessions Judge, Mirzapur, convicted appellant Kallu and Jai Ram under Section 323 and Section 323/34 respectively of the Indian Penal Code for causing simple hurt to one Jawahar and sentenced each of them to rigorous imprisonment for three months. Appellant Jagannath was acquitted of a similar charge under Section 323/34 for the same offence. The Assistant Sessions Judge also acquitted appellant Jagannath of the charge under Section 308 fo the Indian Penal Code, and appellants Jai Ram and Kallu of the charge under Section 308/34 framed against them for the injury sustained by the complainant Nar Singh. All the three appellants were acquitted of the further charge under Section 324/34 for the injury suffered by one Rameshwar. Jai Ram and Kallu appealed to the Sessions Judge, Mirzapur, against their conviction and the complainant Nar Singh preferred an appeal to the Allahabad High Court challenging the acquittal of the three accused of the charges relating to the injuries caused to Rameshwar and Nar Singh and also against the acquittal of Jagannath of the charge under Section 323/34 for the injury to Jawahar. The appeal before the Sessions Judge, Mirzapur, preferred by Jai Ram and Kallu was transferred to the High Court and the two matters were heard and disposed of by a common judgment. The High Court upheld the conviction of Kallu and Jai Ram and dismissed their appeal. The High Court allowed the complainant s appeal in part convicting Jagannath under section 308 and Kallu and Jai Ram under Section 308/34 and sentenced each of them to rigorous imprisonment for one year. Jagannath was further convicted under Section 324/34 and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for three months for causing hurt to Jawahar. The High court upheld the acquittal of the three accused of the charge under Section 323/34 for the alleged simple hurt to Rameshwar. In this appeal by special leave the three appellants question the correctness of the High Court s decision.

2. When the appeal was taken up for hearing, counsel for the State drew our attention to a statement in the special leave petition to the effect that the appellants application for grant of a certificate under Article 134 (1) (c) of the Constitution had been rejected by the High Court on merits, and pointed out that, in fact, the application was rejected because no surrender certificate as required by the rules of the court had been filed. It was submitted that the special leave granted by this court should be revoked on the ground that the appellants had made a false statement in the special leave petition. The appellants have filled an application explaining the circumstances in which that statement happened to be made, adding that they had surrendered later and served out the sentences passed on them. On this application we are satisfied that the statement, though incorrect, was not deliberately made; we are therefore not inclined to accept the prayer for revoking the leave granted.

3. The occurrence out of which this appeal arises took place at about 8.30 in the night of August 20, 1964. The girls of the village had assembled at the chaubutra of one Balbhaddar, alias Khanman, to sing Kajri. After the singing started accused Jai Ram came out of his house which was nearby and asked the girls not to sing there. P. W. 9 Raj Kumari Devi, a cousin of complainant Nar Singh, who was among the girls told Jai Ram that it was the practice to sing Kajri at that place every evening. At this Jai Ram started abusing the girls. The complainant Nar Singh hearing the abuses came out of his house which also was near, and protested against Jai Ram s behaviour. Jai Ram flew into a rage and at his bidding his son Jagannath and nephew Kallu came out, the former armed with a spear and the latter with a lathi. Jagannath struck the complainant with the spear on the left side of his abdomen. P. W. 6 Jawahar, a cousin of the complainant, who had hastened 1007 to the spot to save