ORDER :

1. By this revision, the petitioner-convict is challenging the judgment and order dated 20.05.2022 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge cum Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act Cases, Pratapgarh whereby, the learned Judge dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner and upheld the conviction and sentence passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, Pratapgarh, as under:

2. Briefly stated, the prosecution case as set up is that the complainant lodged a written report before the S.H.O. Police Station Rathanjana stating therein that on 11.06.2011, when he was going to his agricultural field the accused persons assaulted him with axe, stones and lathi due to which he sustained injuries.

3. On the basis of the above report, FIR No. 76/2011 was registered by the police for offence under Sections 341, 323/34 IPC and the police started investigation. On completion of investigation, a charge-sheet was filed against the present petitioner and other accused persons. Thereafter, charges of the case were framed against the petitioner for offence under Sections 341, 323, 324, 325, 326 read with 34 IPC. He denied the charges and claimed trial.

4. During the course of trial, the prosecution examined as many as ten witnesses and got exhibited various documents. After examining the accused petitioner under Sec. 313 Cr.P.C. opportunity was also given to him to lead defence evidence. In defence, the accused persons including the petitioner examined one witnesses and also exhibited one document Ex.D/1.

5. After considering the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses and the material available on record, the trial court vide judgment dated 23.08.2016 convicted and sentenced the petitioner for offence under Section 314, 323, 324, 325/34 and 326 IPC as mentioned above.

6. Aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 23.08.2016, passed by the learned Judicial Judicial magistrate, Pratapgarh, an appeal was preferred before the learned Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act Cases, Pratapgarh, however, the appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed and the conviction and sentence of the petitioner-convict was upheld.

7. At the outset, learned counsel for the accused-petitioner makes a submission that the incident relates back to year 2011 and the petitioner has suffered incarceration of about two months, therefore, without making any interference on merits/conviction, the sentence awarded to the present petitioner may be substituted with the period of sentence already undergone by him.

8. Learned Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondent-State vehemently opposed the prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioner and submitted that there is no reason to disbelieve the prosecution evidence and learned Trial Court has rightly convicted and sentenced the accused-petitioner. He prayed that the impugned judgment and order passed by the Courts below may be sustained and sentence awarded to the accused-petitioner by the Court below be maintained by this Court.

9. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the accused-petitioner as well as learned Public Prosecutor and a