JUDGMENT : Pramod Kumar Srivastava, J. 1. Heard counsel for the revisionist, learned A.G.A. and perused the records. 2. In Criminal case No. 2584/1988 State v. Liaqat @ Baora, the accused-revisionist was charged for offence under Section 326 IPC, which relates to throwing of heated boiled oil by accused over a boy Furkan, causing grievous injury. After appreciating the evidences of facts including evidence of eye-witnesses as well as of the victim, and also other formal evidences relating to investigation and medical legal examination, the court of Judicial Magistrate 1st, Bareilly had found accused Liaqat @ Baora guilty of the charge under Section 326 IPC and sentenced with imprisonment of two years and fine of Rs. 500/- (in default of payment of fine two months additional imprisonment). Against said judgment of the trial court, Criminal Appeal no. 187/1988 Liaqat @ Baora v. State of U.P. was preferred, which was heard and dismissed by the judgment dated 24.04.1992 of court of Sessions Judge, Bareilly. Against these judgments present revision has been preferred by sole accused. 3. I have appreciated arguments advanced by counsel for revisionist and also the grounds mentioned in memorandum of revision. It has been contended that revisionist-accused was mentally challenged person and there is possibility that he might have caused injuries to victim without knowing consequences of his acts. 4. From perusal of records, it appears that such defence plea was not taken on behalf of accused revisionist during the trial or before the appellate court. The burden of proving this fact lies on the revisionist accused who had not discharged it, therefore this ground, raised directly in revision before this Court, is found unacceptable, especially when the present revision has been preferred by revisionist-accused himself and not through next friend/guardian. Apart from it, there is no evidence to accept such averment mentioned only in memo of revision. 5. The grievous injury was caused by revisionist on body of a boy. The conviction and sentence awarded in this matter are in accordance with law, and the punishment is not disproportionate to act committed by revisionist. Therefore, this Court finds no reason to exercise revisional jurisdiction for interference in order of lower court. 6. Accordingly, this revision is dismissed. 7. Revisionist is directed to surrender immediately before trial court for undergoing sentence awarded to him. 8. Therefore, this Court finds no reason to exercise revisional jurisdiction for interference in order of lower court. 6. Accordingly, this revision is dismissed. 7. Revisionist is directed to surrender immediately before trial court for undergoing sentence awarded to him. 8. Let the copy of this judgment be communicated to lower court immediately for ensuring compliance.