VEERMA Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ON the ground of sentence this revision is pressed. Shri Sharma has submitted that the co -accused Maharajsingh's conviction has been altered though he was also convicted alongwith instant revisionist under section 326 IPC. The co -accused has been found guilty under section 323 IPC and he has been given benefit of section 6 of Probation of Offenders Act and the case of the instant petitioner is not distinguishable from co -accused Maharjsingh's case. It is also submitted that the accused -revisionist has undergone sentence for a period of about 12days.

(2.) HOWEVER , after going through the evidence I find that the case of the two accused person is not the same. The person who sustained injury, Jamnalal, gave evidence that Maharajsingh has given him a blow from the back side but the instant revisionist, Veerma had struck him with an axe on the left side of the forehead. The Medical report, Ex. P -2, Corroborates him. Shri Sharma submits that Dr. Gour, P.W. 3, gave evidence in Court and he has given a different version. It is true that in his evidence he has submitted about the injury being inflicted on the right side but that would make no difference inasmuch as he had given evidence with reference to the injury report, which must be deemed correct and it must be also deemed a slip on his part, of confusing right side with the left side.

(3.) IN terms of the above alteration of conviction and sentence the revision is disposed of.