(1.) THE petitioner who was concurrently found guilty of the offence under Sec. 325 IPC and who was sentenced to undergo S.I. for one year and to pay Rs. 2,000/ - as fine challenges the same in this revision.
(2.) THE incident took place on 29.12.1990 at 7.30 PM. The injured (PW1) and also the petitioner/accused were engaged in unloading cement from the church premises. There was some exchange of words between PW1 and the accused. Both of them were on the top of the lorry. They got down. Because of previous enemity the accused beat on the left cheek of PW1. He fell down. When he rose up, again he was beaten by the accused. The accused also kicked on the left knee causing fracture of the patella. He was taken to the hospital. Police recorded Ext.P1 F.I. Statement. After conducting investigation charge sheet was laid against the petitioner under Sec. 325 IPC.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has argued at length challenging the prosecution version. Learned counsel would submit that there was no acceptable evidence regarding the light in which the incident could have witnessed. But the witnesses have stated that there was light at that place. Moreover PW1 and the accused were known to each other and were known to PW2 and PW3 also. The fact that PW1 had sustained injury as proved by PW6 cannot be now assailed at all.