JUDGMENT :

1. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist, learned AGA and perused the records.

2. This criminal revision has been filed against the judgment and order dated 19.02.2010 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-IV, Faizabad, in Criminal Misc. Case No. 82 of 1998, convicting the revisionist-accused under Section 323 IP.C. for six months simple imprisonment with fine of Rs. 500/-and under Section 325 I.P.C. for three years simple imprisonment with fine of Rs. 1,000/-with default stipulation as well as the judgment and order dated 28.01.2011 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.5. Faizabad in Criminal Appeal No. 33 of 2010 whereby the Appellate Court has affirmed the judgment and order of learned Trial Court.

3. In brief, facts of the case are that the informant Smt. Ram Rati lodged an F.I.R. at Police Station Haidarganj, Faizabad, that when her grand daughter namely Km. Kamlesh was grazing cattle and they entered the field of accused Ram Pratap, he beat up her grand daughter by punches and slaps. When her grand daughter narrated her, she went to the house of accused to reprimand him, the accused also beaten her with sticks. On her hue and cry when villagers reached there, the accused fled away abusing the informant. The informant received injury in her right hand. The F.I.R. was lodged and during the course of investigation, after finding fracture at the lower part of her right hand, the N.C.R. was converted into F.I.R. and Section 325 I.P.C. was added and the I.O. submitted charge-sheet under Section 323, 325 and 504 I.P.C.

4. The concerned Magistrate framed the charges under the aforesaid Sections. The prosecution, in order to prove the guilt, examined following witnesses.

5. The prosecution produced following documentary evidence:

6. The statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. wherein he denied the allegations and charges and stated that the witnesses have deposed due to enmity. No defence evidence was produced from the side of the accused.

7. Before the Trial Court, it has been argued that since the copy of the N.C.R. is not on record and G.D had not been produced and no order under Section 155 (2) Cr.P.C. was on record, hence, the investigation is faulty and the accused is entitled to the benefit of doubt.

8. This argument was answered by the trial Court that the case was initially registered as N.C.R. but on the basis of fracture and radiologist's report, the case was converted into Section 325, 323 and 504 I.P.C. and a crime no. 82 of 1998 was allotted. It has been satisfactorily answered that carbon copy of N.C.R. was available on record which was admissible in evidence under Section 65 of The Indian Evidence Act.

9. Another objection was raised by the counsel for the accused that carbon copy of the G.D. is not available on record. It is proved that the G.D. are weeded out after five years. Hence original G.D. was not available. Carbon copy of the G.D. is prepared in the same process, therefore, carbon copy of the G.D. can be treated as original.

10. It was further argued before the trial Court that the place of occurrence has not been proved and there are serious contradictions about the place of occurrence in the statements of the witnesses of facts.

There are only two witnesses of fact namely P.W.1, Km. Kamlesh and P.W.2, informant, Ram Rati. It has been written in the N.C.R. that the informant was going to reprimand the accused at his home when he started beating her by sticks. P.W.1 has deposed that accused had beaten at her hand, she further deposed that after getting i