JITENDRA KUMAR Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Applicant has preferred the instant revision under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the judgment dated 17.2.2004 passed in Criminal Appeal No.278 of 2002 by the Special Judge under the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act , 1989 (henceforth 'the Act of 1989'), Bilaspur by which the Learned Special Judge has affirmed the judgment dated 16.9.2002 passed in Criminal Case No.411 of 2001 by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bilaspur convicting and sentencing the accused/Applicant as under: Conviction Sentence Under Section 326 of the Rigorous imprisonment for 2 Indian Penal Code years and fine of Rs.1,000/- with default stipulation

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that on 23.2.2001, Complainant Dharmendra (PW5) along with Dinesh (PW2), Vyas Narayan (PW4) and Ramkishun (PW3) went to Ratanpur for watching a movie. Since the movie had not started in the talkies, Complainant Dharmendra went to the salon of Suresh (PW1) situated in front of the talkies for getting his beard shaved. Raju (PW8) was making shave of Dharmendra. Suresh and his friends Pappu and Vinod (PW7) were also present in the salon. In the meanwhile, the Applicant came there, snatched the ustara from the hands of Raju Shriwas and assaulted on the left cheek of Dharmendra with the said ustara. Thereafter, the Applicant threw the ustara there and ran away. First Information Report (Ex.P1) was lodged by Suresh (PW1). Dharmendra was medically examined by Dr. Anil Shrivastava (PW9), who gave his report (Ex.P5). He found one deep incised wound over left cheek, vertical in sign, from left ear to left chin, measuring 5 1/2 cms. x ? cm. x ? cm., deep, muscles and arteries were cut, bleeding profusely. He opined that the injury could be caused by a sharp cutting dangerous weapon and the injury could be grievous in case of disfiguration of face. Vide answer to query (Ex.P6), it was further opined that if immediate treatment had not been provided, the injury could have been dangerous to life. Vide Ex.P3, a ustara was seized from the Applicant and vide Ex.P7, the doctor further opined that the injury sustained by Dharmendra could be caused by the said ustara. On completion of the investigation, a charge-sheet was filed against the Applicant for the offence punishable under Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code. Charge was framed against him under Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code.

(3.) In support of its case, the prosecution examined as many as 14 witnesses. Statement of the accused/Applicant was also recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. in which he denied the guilt. No defence witness has been examined.