Short Note This criminal revision under section 397 read with section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is directed against the judgment dated 23.3.2001 delivered in Criminal Appeal No. 87/99 by Special Judge under the S.C. and S.T. (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, Satna whereby the judgment of the learned trial Magistrate convicting the applicant under section 325, IPC was confirmed but the sentence awarded to him under section 326/149, IPC was set aside. The only point that has been argued by the learned senior counsel for the applicant is that so far as Bhaiya Singh is concerned, the evidence on record does not disclose that he had committed the crime under section 325 IPC. It is argued that in the FIR the name of the applicant was mentioned stating that he was present at the spot and it appears that he has not taken any part in the crime. Moreover, it has been argued that all the accused persons against whom charges under sections 326/149 and 325/149 were framed have not been convicted either under section 326/149 or under section 325/149 IPC. They have been convicted for commission of their individual offences. Therefore, this Court is required to examine if the applicant was individually liable for commission of offence and he cannot be held to be vicariously liable for commission of offences. It has been further argued that though it is clear from the evidence of PW-1 Hiralal in paragraph-4 of his statement that it was the applicant who had struck a lathi blow on the hand of the witness causing injury to metacarpal bone of finger but if that was so then he could have stated this fact before the police at the earliest. In cross-examination in paragraph 9 this witness was unable to explain why did he not mention to the Police that Bhaiya Singh had given him a lathi blow. The relevant police statement was also pointed out to the Court showing that name of Bhaiya Singh is not mentioned in the statement. It appears from the evidence on record and it is not disputed that the applicant may have been present but the individual role ascribed to the applicant is that he has struck a lathi blow on the finger of Hiralal (PW-1). It appears from the evidence on record and it is not disputed that the applicant may have been present but the individual role ascribed to the applicant is that he has struck a lathi blow on the finger of Hiralal (PW-1). The learned P.L. for the State, on the other hand, argued that both the Courts below have relied on the evidence of PW-1 Hiralal and there was no reason to disbelieve the testimony of Hiralal and other witnesses. There is no reason for holding that the applicant was not involved in the commission of crime. Having heard the rival contentions of the parties, this Court finds that the contention of the applicant appears to be correct on facts. PW-1 Hiralal has not implicated the applicant at the time when his police statement was recorded. He has implicated Udaibhan for causing injuries to his finger. In view of the fact that the applicant was being implicated for the first time in the Court statement of PW-1 Hiralal, he is not reliable. Therefore, it appears that the applicant is not proved to have committed the offence under section 325, IPC. The result is that the revision succeeds and is allowed. The impugned judgment delivered by the learned special Judge referred above against Bhaiya Singh is set aside. Bhaiya Singh is hereby acquitted of the offence punishable under section 325, IPC. Fine amount, if deposited by the applicant, shall be refunded back to him after due verification.