1. The aforementioned five petitioners have been found guilty of the charges under Ss.147 and 323 of the I.P.C., and each one of them has been sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment for eight months under each count. Petitioner No.1 has been further found guilty of the offence punishable under Sec.324 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced thereunder to suffer further one years rigorous imprisonment. The sentences have, however, been ordered to run concurrently. They, having lost the appeal against the order of conviction before the Sessions Judge, have filed this application in revision challenging the order of conviction and sentence passed against them.

2. The case against the petitioners arose on information before the police lodged by Rameshwar Singh at the Police Station. Short facts of the case are as follows - That while Rameshwar Singh was returning home after collecting some tolls at Majhauli Hat on 10-5-75 at about 8 P.M., he was suddenly surrounded by these petitioners. They asked him to enter into a compromise in the proceeding under Sec.145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to which the latter refused whereupon they all fell upon him and began assaulting with various weapons they were holding. His brother Ram Ekbal Singh rushed and intervened, but he too was assaulted. Allegation is that petitioner Nos.1 and 2 were carrying Farsas but they used the blunt portion of the weapons in assaulting Rameshwar Singh and Ram Ekbal Singh. There is further allegation that the three others also joined and they assaulted with fists and slaps.

3. The police, on information lodged by Rameshwar Singh (P.W.7), instituted a case, proceeded with the investigation and finally submitted chargesheet, on the basis of which, the Chief Judicial Magistrate took cognizance of the offences. Petitioner No.1 was charged for an offence punishable under Sec.325 of the Indian Penal Code for causing grievous hurt to P.W.7, but finally, the trial Court, on consideration of the evidence, convicted him of the charge under Sec.324 of the Indian Penal Code and others were held guilty of the charges under Sections 147 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code under which petitioner No.1 has also been convicted.

4. Short point raised on behalf of the petitioners is that there was a counter-version of the case of which both the Courts below failed to take notice of and made totally a wrong appraisal of the evidence. Normally, this Court, sitting in revision, would not have entered into discussion for re-appraisal of evidence in a case finally concluded by both the Courts of facts, but, taking into consideration that the Courts below committed serious error in not taking into consideration, the injuries found on the two petitioners, namely, petitioners, 1 and 2 said to have been caused to them in the same occurrence, it appears essential to examine the counter-version of the case brought on the record in evidence.

5. Five defence witnesses are said to have been examined, out of whom D.W.5 is a doctor. The doctor found injuries on petitioner No.1 as well as on petitioner No.2. The injury No.(1) on petitioner No.1 was an incised wound. Besides, there were four injuries on his body. Similarly, the doctor found five injuries on petitioner No.2 as well. Their case is that they got injured in the same occurrence. Petitioner No.2, in support of the defence plea, examined himself as one of the defence-witnesses (under Sec.315 of the Code of Criminal Procedure). Other three witnesses have also testified to this fact that the members of the prosecution party, who have their residence at the spot in front of the road, were the aggressors. D.W.4 has given an ocular-version of the entire incident. It is relevant to state that petitioner No. 1 filed a complaint before the Chief Judicial Magistrate on 12-5-1975. 11-5-1975 was a Sunday and, therefore, the complaint was filed on the day following i.e. on 12-5-1975. The trial Court, while discussing the defence version, has