Hon’ble Virendra Singh, J.—Suresh the accused/revisionist, preferred this revision against the judgement and order dated 14.6.1983 passed by Sri Praduman Kumar HJS 7th Additional Sessions Judge, Badaun in Criminal Appeal No. 286/1982 (Suresh v. State) whereby the learned Lower Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the order dated 6.10.1982 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate 2nd, Badaun in Case No. 791/1982 (State v. Ram Autar and others) in which the accused/revisionist was convicted and sentenced to undergo RI for one year for the offence under Section 458 IPC and RI for 6 months for the offence under Section 323/34, IPC with the direction that both the sentence shall run concurrently.

2. I have heard learned counsel for the revisionist and learned AGA on behalf of the State of U.P. The respondent and perused the record.

3. It is submitted on behalf of the revisionist that no case under Section 458 and Section 323/34 IPC was made out against the revisionist and the judgement of the Courts below are bad in law. There is no independent witness to support the prosecution case. The witnesses produced by the prosecution are related to the complainant. Even independent witness have not supported the prosecution case. They have only stated that they had seen accused persons from behind of them running from the place of occurrence. The injury on the person of the injured persons speak to falsity of the prosecution case as were found merely five superficial injuries on two persons. There were material contradictions too in the statements of the prosecution witnesses and even then the Court below placed reliance on such witnesses thereby committing manifest error in passing the impugned order. It is also submitted that this Revision may be allowed thereby setting aside the judgement and orders of both the Courts below thereby acquitting the revisionist for the offences and sentences awarded to him.

4. The learned AGA contended that there is no error either on the facts of the case or on any point of law in the impugned orders which have been passed by both the Courts below thereby convicting the accused/revisionist and sentencing them for the offence under Sections 498, 323/34, IPC, well proved on record through the reliable prosecution evidence. It is also contended that there is no force in this revision being no error in concurrent findings of both the Courts below.

5. In the light of the contentions of both the parties, I have gone through the facts and circumstances on record. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that in the night of 13/14.7.1980 accused-revisionist Suresh alongwith his companion Ram Autar and two other persons is alleged to have committed lurking house tress pass by entering into the house of Rafees Ahmad who was sleeping alongwith his brother Munne in the Courtyard. When complainant Rafees Ahmad and his brother Munne raised alarm, the accused-revisionist Suresh and his three companions are alleged to have given beating to them with lathis and thereafter they ran away from there. The occurrence was witnessed besides the injurerd also by PW Rafiq Ahmad. Razi Mohammad and Rupa. A report of the incident was lodged at Police Station Kotwali by complainant Rafees Ahmad next morning. In support of the case of prosecution, seven PWs in all were examined in lower Court. Nafees Ahmad complainant PW 1, his injured brother Munne PW 2, Razi Mohammad PW 6, Rupa PW 3, Rafiq PW 4 are eye-witnesses. Dr. N.P. Singh PW 5 conducted medical examination of Nafees Ahmad and his brother Munne on 14.7.1980 and he proved their injury reports Exts. Ka. 3 and Ka. 4. PW 7 S.I. Chandra Pal Singh is the Investigating Officer of the case.

6. The law pertaining to the powers of this Court at the time of hearing the revision is well known as is summarized below:

‘’The revisionary Court is empowered to exercise all the powers conferred on the Appellate Court by virtue of the provisions contained in Section 401 Cr.P.C. Section 397