P.N. Shinghal, J.
1. This is a petition for revision of the appellate judgment of learned Sessions Judge, Jhunjhunu, dated November 3, 1970 by which he has upheld the conviction of petitioners Sheo Narain and Bhura Ram for offences Under Section 323 I.P.C. but reduced the sentence to a fine of Rs. 200/. each.
2. The incident giving rise to the petition is alleged to have taken place on June 3, 1959, in a portion of field No. 341 of Dhani Jhuntha, of village Bbanpur, tehsil Chirawa. A complaint regarding the incident was filed by Mahada Ram P.W. 2 on June 17, 1959, against six persons including petitioners Sheo Narain and Bhura Ram. It was alleged by him that he was beaten by the accused in his portion of the field as they nursed a grievance against him on account of his possession on his own portion of the field It was alleged that while he was plugging his field on June 3, 1959, the accused came and beat him with 'lathis'. It was stated further that he (Mahadaram) went to lodge a report with the police, but it was not properly recorded, and that when the police did not arrange for his medical examination, he got himself examined by Dr. H.P. Rastogi P.W. 1, Medical Officer, Sadar Hospital, Chirawa the same day. The case had a protracted trial, and ultimately petitioners Sheo Narain and Bhura Ram were convicted of the offences Under Section 323 I.P.C. and were sentenced to simple imprisonment for 2 months and a fine of Rs. 200/- each. In default of payment of fine, they were ordered to undergo further imprisonment of one month. Rs. 250/- were ordered to be paid by way of compensation to Mahada Ram Against that judgment of the learned Munsif-Magistrate, Chirawa, dated August 24, 1968, the petitioners filed an appeal. It was heard and decided by lparned Sessions Judge, Jhunjhunu, on November 3, 1970. As has been stated, he has maintained the conviction of the petitioners but reduced the sentence to a fine of Rs. 200/- each. The imprisonment of one month which was ordered in default of payment of the fine, has been maintained.
3. It has been argued by the learned Counsel for the petitioners that the impugned appellate judgment of the Sessions Judge is not in conformity with the requirement of Section 367 Cr.P.C. because it is far too sketchy and the learned Judge has not discharged his duty, as a court of fact, of appreciating the evidence on the record. Reference in this connection has been made to the decision of this Court in Chiranjilal v. Shyamlal 1952 RLW 263. I have gone through the judgment and there is some justification for this argument of the learned counsel. The impugend judgmentof the learned Sessions Judge shows that while he has made a mention of the points for determination, he had not dealt with the question of conviction with reference to the evidence on the record. I have therefore examined the entire record with due regard to the arguments of the learned Counsel for the parties so that there may be no possibility of any prejudice to the petitioners.
4. It has been argued by the learned Counsel for the petitioners that there was an inordinate delay in filing the complaint, and that was enough to discredit the allegations of complainant Mahada Ram P.W. 2 It has been pointed out that while the incident took place on June 3. 1969, the complaint was filed on June 17, 1969. The argument is however not tenable because of two reasons. Firstly, the complainant has stated that he made a report to the police the same day, and there is no reascn for disbelieving his statement to this effect. Secondly, the complainant got his injuries examined by Dr. H.P. Rastopi P.W. 1 the same day, at about 4 p.m. The Medical Officer has proved the injury report Ex. P 1 and bas stated that atleast one of the injuries could not be self inflicted. There is thus no justification for the argument that there bas been an unexplained delay in prosecuting the accused.
5. It has next been argued that there is no evidence in regard to the infliction of any injury by petitioner Sheo Narain, and that he has heen convicted without sufficient evidence. I have gone through the statements of Mahada Ram P.W. 2, Smt. Chiria P.W. 3, Sanwal P.W. 4 and Ghadsi P.W. 6. Mahada Ram P.W. 2 has not stated what injury was inflicted on his person by petitioner Sheo Narain. His wife Smt China P.W. 3 has no doubt stated that Sheo Narain inflicted an injury on the knee of her husband, but she has not stated on which knee the injury was inflicted Sanwal P.W. 4 has expressed his inability to state on which knee the injury was infliced by Sheo Narain, and much the same is the position in regard to the statement of Ghadsi P.W. 5 It will be recalled that Mahada Ram implicated four other accused in the case and alleged that they bad also given a beating with 'lathis'. In these facts and circumstances, it will not be proper to hold that the prosecution has succeeded in proving that the injury which was found on the right knee of Mahada Ram P.W. 2 was inflicted by petitioner Sheo Narain He is therefore entitled to an acquittal.
6. I have gone through the evidence against petitioner Bhura Ram, also. Mahada Ram P.W. 2 has stated that Bhura Ram inflicted a 'lathi' blow on the left side of his back, and on his left Land. His statement has been corroborated by Smt. Chiria P.W. 3, Sanwal P.W. 4 and Ghadsi P.W. 5. It also finds support from injury report Ex. P. 1, which has been proved by Dr. H.P. Rastogi P.W. 1. It has been argued that Sanwal P.W. 4 is not a reliable witness because his name was not mentioned as a witness of the incident in the complaint filed by Mahada Ram, but the argument is not tenable because the name of Sanwal has been mentioned in the list of the witnesses which was filed with the complaint. The evidence of the prosecution is therefore quite satisfactory to prove that accused Bhura Ram committed the offences Under Section 323 I.P.C. It is not disputed before me that there is no satisfactory rebuttal of that evidence. The conviction and the sentence of Bhura Ram are therefore upheld.
7. The revision petition is allowed to the extent that accused Sheo Narain is acquitted of the offence Under Section 323 I.P.C. and the fine, if paid, shall be remitted to him. The conviction and the sentence of petitioner Bhura Ram are upheld. The amount of the compersation which has been awarded to Mahada Ram is reduced to Rs. 200-/- and he shall deposit the balance of Rs. 50/- in the trial court it the compenation has been paid to hirr already.