MANDHATA SINGH, J.:–Prosecution case, in brief, is that informant was at his home on the day of incident, i.e., on 17.1.1982. In the meantime, all the accused persons named in the F.I.R. came variously armed with vala and farsa after breaking eastern wall of boundary. For accused Parshuram it is said he was in possession a bomb in his bag which was shown to the villagers to disperse them from the place of occurrence. After that none of the villagers came there. For informant it is said that he was at his home only due to closure of his court as he was an advocate. It is further said that petitioner Jai Krishna Singh blew his farsa aiming neck of the informant which he protested by holding the stick portion of the farsa, so superficial injury appeared on the neck only. 2. After conclusion of the trial judgment of conviction is passed by the Sessions Judge for the offence under section 323 of the Indian Penal Code only against these petitioners and one Ram Chandra Singh. On the point of sentence period undergone by them was found sufficient. 3. In all six witnesses were examined in this case including a doctor. They are Surendra Prasad Singh, Vijoy Kumar Singh, Banshi Yadav, Kapildeo Upadhaya, Dr. Nawal Kishore and Munnilal. Documentary evidences are also marked Exhibits-1 to 4. Of the witnesses, P.W.4 Surendra Prasad Singh is informant of the case and victim also, P.Ws. 1 and 6 are eye witnesses. P.W.5 is son of the informant, who reported the matter to the police apprehending committing of the offence and P.W.2 is a doctor, who has examined the injuries found on the person of the victim. 4. Finding statement of P.Ws. 1, 4 and 6 about commitment of the offence under section 323 of the Indian Penal Code, conviction is reached under this section. Several infirmities were shown but not to extend to doubt the conviction for the offence under section 323 of the Indian Penal Code. In the trial charges were framed for the offence under sections 147, 148, 447 and 307/149 of the Indian Penal Code, that is believed for the offence under section 323 of the Indian Penal Code only. On the point of sentence an appropriate observation is made by finding the period of custody undergone sufficient towards sentence as parties were at litigating term. On the point of sentence an appropriate observation is made by finding the period of custody undergone sufficient towards sentence as parties were at litigating term. Incident, if any, committed in the year 1982 and judgement was passed only in the year 2001. 5. Finding no infirmities from any corner, this revision application is dismissed affirming the conviction and sentence passed by the court below. 6. Petitioners are apprehending on the point that one of the petitioners, namely, Jai Krishna Singh (petitioner no.1) was an R.P.F. employee at the relevant date, so an adverse inference can be drawn against him. But the nature of the offence is such which does not come within the definition of moral turpitude. So no question arises about taking any adverse inference.