JUDGMENT : N.B. ASTHANA, J. 1. The revisionists were convicted on 30.4.1981 by the then Vth Additional Judicial Magistrate, Bareilly in Criminal Case No. 785 of 1980 under Sections 323/34 and 325/34, I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo R.I. for one month and pay fine of Rs. 500 on the first count and to undergo 6 month R.I. on the second count. The appeal filed by them was dismissed by the then Vth Additional Sessions Judge, Bareilly in Criminal Appeal No. 72 of 1981 decided on 25.3.1982. Aggrieved by these judgments and orders the revisionists have come to this Court. 2. The F.I.R. was lodged against four accused. Two of the accused namely Sannu and Banney were acquitted because the complainant PW-1 Subhan in his statement gave out that these two were empty handed and were not having any lathi or danda. PW-2 Churl and PW-3 Chunni Lal did not name these two persons as the assailants. The revisionists who were said to be the actual assailants were convicted and sentenced and their appeal was also rejected. 3. From the record it would appear that at the stage of appeal the F.I.R. said to have been lodged by the revisionists first at the police station and its entry in the G.D. were accepted for evidence at the appellate stage. The Appellants were not examined u/s 313, Code of Criminal Procedure in the light of the additional evidence accepted in appeal nor they were given any opportunity to adduce further defence evidence, if any, in the case. 4. The first point urged in this revision is that the appellate Court committed an illegality in accepting the additional evidence at the appellate stage and not giving any opportunity to the Appellants to adduce defence evidence in the case. This argument cannot be said to be without substance. The appellate court did not follow the due procedure after accepting the additional evidence of the prosecution. I do not, however, think that on this ground the case should be remanded. Since the matter has become quite old it would be proper that the revision is decided without considering the additional evidence accepted by the trial court. 5. The prosecution in support of its case examined five witnesses, PW-2 Churl and PW-3 Chunni Lal are witnesses of facts. All of them in their examination-in-chief have supported the prosecution story. Since the matter has become quite old it would be proper that the revision is decided without considering the additional evidence accepted by the trial court. 5. The prosecution in support of its case examined five witnesses, PW-2 Churl and PW-3 Chunni Lal are witnesses of facts. All of them in their examination-in-chief have supported the prosecution story. The prosecution case finds support from the F.I.R. and the medical examination report. The X-ray examination report also indicated fracture of wrist bones. The concurrent findings of facts arrived at by the two courts below cannot be upset in this revision unless the findings are shown to be perverse or are not supported by evidence on record. It is not the case here. 6. No case for interference in the judgment and orders as above of the courts below has been made out. The sentence also cannot be said to be severe. 7. The revision is dismissed. The bail and stay order granted on 30.3.1982 are vacated. The revisionists would be taken into custody to serve out the remaining part of the sentences.