Jagannath vs The State of Rajasthan

Nisha Gupta, J.—This revision petition has been filed against the order dated 19/8/1998 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Ramganjmandi, District Kota in Cr. Appeal No. 27/1998, where conviction has been maintained. The present petitioner has been convicted for the offence u/s 326 IPC and sentenced him to undergo three years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500/- and in default of payment of fine, further six months imprisonment. The short facts of the case are that complainant, Ghanshyam has lodged a report on 2/5/1980 stating therein that accused Jagannath has caused injury by Gandasi at his hand on which fir No. 72/80 has been registered and after investigation, charge sheet has been filed u/s 326 IPC. After conclusion of the trial, present petitioner has been convicted and sentenced, as referred above. Aggrieved, present petitioner has filed appeal which was also dismissed, hence, this revision petition.

The contention of the present petitioner is that conviction is bad in law. There are several infirmities in the statements of the witnesses. The evidence of the injured is improbable. His contention is that petitioner has caused injuries first by Gandasi and thereafter he has made assault by Lathi. The change of the weapon is unbelievable and eye witness has not been produced. There is old enmity between the parties. Sentence awarded is excessive.

Per contra, learned public prosecutor submits that there is no infirmity in the impugned judgment and looking to the nature of the offence, appropriate sentence has been awarded.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned judgment as well as record of the case.

PW. 1, Ghanshyam-injured has stated that present petitioner has inflicted blow from Gandasi on his left hand and his left hand get cut at elbow joint. Other two witnesses, PW. 2, Madanlal and PW. 3, Onkar have also supported the statement of injured Ghanshyam. This ocular evidence has been further supported by medical evidence PW. 10, Dr. Ramesh Vadhwani who prepared the injury report and PW. 11 Dr. S.P. Anles has conducted the X-Ray and after considering X-Ray Report, it was opined that Ghanshyam has suffered grievous injury on his hand and injury was of grave nature as revealed from Ex. P.4 that it was having sharp edges and even a piece of bone was severe and found in wound and admittedly the injury was placed on elbow.

The contention of present petitioner is that there are several infirmities in the statements of witnesses, but it does not have any bearing on the facts as no material contradictions have been pointed out by the counsel for the petitioner.

It has been stated that the present petitioner has caused injuries first by Gandasi and thereafter he has made assault by Lathi. It is unbelievable, but if any minor contradiction has been occurred, it is insignificant. It is true that Nanda Gurjar has not been produced, but two other eye witnesses, PW. 2 Madan and PW. 3 Onkar have supported the prosecution story and further ocular evidence has been supported by medical evidence, hence, there is no infirmity in the reasonings and conclusion given by the court below. Other contention of the present petitioner is that there is established enmity between the parties. Present petitioner has also lodged fir against the complainant. If enmity is established, it gives another foundation to the prosecution as fact of enmity gives strength to the prosecution that due to enmity, the present petitioner has inflicted grievous injury to the injured person. Hence, there is no infirmity in the impugned judgment. The court below has considered the relevant evidence available on record and arrived at a reasonable finding. No interference is needed on the finding of the conviction.

On the point of the sentence, the contention of the present petitioner is that the incident relates to the year 1980; present petitioner is facing proceedings since long, hence, a liberal attitude be adopted.

Per contra, the contention of learned public prosecutor is that there is no mitigating circumstance in favour of the present petitioner. Facts reveal that due to enmity, the present petitioner has inflicted grievous injury by sharp weapon to the injured person. He was of the age of 30 years at the time of the incident. There is no mitigating circumstance in favour of the present petitioner and further more looking to the gravity of the injury, present petitioner deserves no sympathy, hence, there is no need to interfere in the sentence also. In view of above, the revision petition is liable to be dismissed and the same is hereby dismissed.