JUDGMENT :

SANJAY KUMAR PACHORI, J.

1. Heard Sri Ashok Kumar Mishra, Advocate holding brief of Sri Lakshmi Kant Pandey, learned counsel for the revisionist, Sri Rajendra Prasad Shukla, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 and Sri Karunakar Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material on record.

2. The Present Criminal Revision has been preferred to set-aside the judgement and order dated 29.6.2016 passed by the Sessions Judge, Bhadohi at Gyanpur in Criminal Appeal No. 02 of 2012 by which the appellate Court partly affirmed the judgment and order dated 13.4.2012 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhadohi at Gyanpur and acquitted the other accused persons, whereby the trial Court convicted the revisionist and two other persons under Section 323, 325 and 504 of Indian Penal Code (in short “I.P.C.”) and sentenced under Section 323 of I.P.C. to undergo simple imprisonment of six months and a fine of Rs. 200/-, under Section 325 of I.P.C. to undergo simple imprisonment of two years and fine of Rs. 500/- and under Section 504 of I.P.C. to undergo simple imprisonment of six months and fine of Rs. 200 and in default in payment of fine to further undergo an additional imprisonment of one month. All the sentences shall run concurrently.

3. Brief facts of the case are that the one N.C.R. No. 196 of 2004 was registered on 10.10.2004 at 18:30 hours on the basis of oral statement of Jai Devi, under Sections 323, 504 of I.P.C. against the revisionist and two other named persons stating that on 10.10.2004 at about 09:00 A.M., the revisionist and other accused persons started to tying their cattle in the land of the first informant Jai Devi forcibly. When she denied, the revisionist and other two co-accused persons (who acquitted by the appellate court) annoyed and abused her and committed marpeet by lathi and danda and on making hue and cry of Jai Devi, several other villagers came at the place of occurrence and saved her. In this incident, she sustained injures. The revisionist and other accused person fled away from the spot and threatened her with dire consequences. Thereafter, the police got the injured Jai Devi medically examined and as per the X-ray report, fracture was found in the left shoulder bone. The investigation was started, after passing an order under Section 155(2) of Cr.P.C. After completing the investigation, the Investigating Officer was submitted charge sheet against two accused persons (who are acquitted by the appellate Court) and exonerated the revisionist.

4. The revisionist was summoned under Section 319 of Cr.P.C. by the trial court. To prove the case of prosecution, the prosecution examined as many as 6 witness namely PW-1 Smt. Jaidevi, PW-2 Dayaram, PW-3 Rajmani Upadhyay Retd. Sub-Inspector, PW-4 Dr. (Captain) A.K. Pandey, PW-5 Dr. S.N. Gupta, PW-6 Constable Ramesh Singh.

5. After examining the prosecution witnesses, statement of the accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. was recorded, wherein he denied the prosecution evidence and stated that he was implicated in a false case due to enmity. On behalf of the revisionist some documentary evidence had been filed but the revisionist has not examined any witnesses.

6. The appellate Court vide its judgment dated 29.06.2016 partly allowed the criminal appeal filed by the revisionist and two other coaccused persons, by which the trial court acquitted the other coaccused persons. The appellate Court held that the injured Jai Devi, sustained one injury which was caused by the revisionist. The appellate court further held that the prosecution has failed to prove the common intention of the other co-accused in committing the offence, and acquitted the other co-accused Gautam and Fullesh.

7. Learned counsel for the revisionist vehemently argued that there is material irregularity, illegality, in appreciation of finding recorded by the trial court as well as appellate court and argued as follows:

(a) There is material contradictions in the evidence of Jai Dev