Court No. - 93

Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 4881 of 2022

Revisionist :- Chunnelal Yadav

Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another

Counsel for Revisionist :- Manoj Kumar

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

Hon'ble Mrs. Jyotsna Sharma,J.

1. Heard Sri Manoj Kumar, learned counsel for the revisionist, Ms. Sunita

Chauhan, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2, learned A.G.A. for the

State and perused the material on record.

2. This criminal revision has been filed by the revisionist- Chunnelal Yadav

challenging the judgement and order dated 13.09.2022 passed by Additional

Sessions Judge/ Special Judge (E.C. Act), Azamgarh in Criminal Appeal

No.110 of 2018 (Paras Nath Yadav vs. State of U.P. and Another), whereby

the judgement and order dated 28.11.2018 passed by Chief Judicial

Magistrate, Azamgarh in Criminal Case No.3863 of 2005 (State of U.P. vs.

Chunnelal and Others) was set-aside.

3. Following relevant facts emerge from the material on record:-

(I) The revisionist/accused- Chunnelal was tried by Chief Judicial Magistrate,

Azamgarh in a Criminal Case No.3863 of 2005 (State of U.P. vs. Chunnelal

and Others) arising out of Case Crime No.72 of 1999, under sections- 323,

324, 504, 506 I.P.C., Police Station- Saraimeer, District- Azamgarh on the

allegation that some altercation occurred between the accused and the

complainant/first informant- Paras Nath for giving a message to Gram

Pradhan; the revisionist/accused Chunnelal abused the first informant; he

attacked him with a laathi on his lower limb causing fracture; the incident was

witnessed by Narsingh Yadav and Mohan Lal; he went away extending threats

to his life.

(II) Two witnesses of fact, the first informant/injured himself as P.W.1 and

Narsingh Yadav as P.W.2 were examined, besides the radiologist as P.W.3 and

the pharmacist as P.W.4. On the basis of evaluation of oral evidence and

prosecution papers in support, the Magistrate Court came to a conclusion that

only offence proved against him was of section- 323 I.P.C., therefore the

revisionist/accused was acquitted for the charges under sections- 325, 504,

506 I.P.C. and was convicted for charge under section- 323 I.P.C. only. It may

also be noted that the convict was released on probation of good conduct for

six months.

(III) Perusal of the papers further show that the first informant/the victim filed

a Criminal Appeal No.110 of 2018, which was allowed setting-aside the order

passed by the trial court and remanding it back for decision afresh in the light

of the observations made by the appellate court. From the perusal of the

impugned judgement passed by the appellate court, it is revealed that the first

informant/the victim assailed the order of the trial court on the ground that

there was enough of evidence to draw the inference that it was the accused

who attacked him with a laathi causing a grievous injury, i.e., fracture on his

lower limb, but in opinion of the appellate court, the learned trial court

completely ignored the medical evidence and acquitted the accused of the

charge under section- 325 I.P.C. passing an arbitrary order.

(IV) The learned appellate court besides taking into account the above

contention given on behalf of the appellant before it, framed two points of

determination in para-8 of the judgement; Firstly, whether the conviction and

sentencing order is good on the anvil of law; Secondly, whether it was proper

for the trial court to give him benefit of provisions of The Probation of

Offenders Act, 1958.

(V) After framing two questions as aforesaid, the appellate court went on to

evaluate the evidence given by the prosecution. It noticed that the F.I.R. was

not delayed and that the injuries were examined by the Medical Officer and

that the victim himself said that his lower limb was broken by the impact of

laathi blow given by the accused. The Court took exception to the fact that the

X-ray report was available on record, but the same was not ta