KOKSINGH Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a revision under section 397 of the Cr.P.C. against the order dated 18th Dec. 1991, passed by Shri K.K. Gupta, Sessions Judge, Bhind, in Cr. Appeal' No. 69/91 confirming the order of conviction and sentence passed by Judicial Magistrate, First Class, in Cr. Case No. 534/88 on 28.9.1991.

(2.) THE applicant has been convicted under section 326 of I.P.C. and sentenced to two years imprisonment. The incident occurred on 15.10.1984 in village Bhatmaas Ka Pura where Ram Autar was inflicted Farsa injuries. Appellant Koksingh and three others were prosecuted for the offence under section 326 and 326/34 of I.P.C. Prosecution story is that while Ram Autar was returning after getting his shave and reached near the door of Gyansingh, he was attacked by Koksingh and others. Koksingh had a Farsa and others were armed with la this Koksingh inflicted Farsa injuries to Ram Autar.

(3.) AFTER usual investigation, the challan was filed. The appellant denied the guilt and stated that he has been falsely implicated. The learned trial Magistrate convicted the appellant under section 326 of I.P.C. Another accused Naresh Singh was found guilty under section 324 of I.P.C. and released on probation of offenders Act. Appellant Koksingh was convicted under section 326 of I.P.C. and sentenced to two years imprisonment, with a fine of Rs. 500/ -. The appeal preferred by the appellant was dismissed, hence this revision. Shri Rakesh Saxena, learned counsel for the applicant assailed the finding on the ground that the prosecution has failed to prove the offence. He contended that the evidence on record does not establish the offence. Having considered the evidence on record and the documents especially the evidence of P.W.1 Ram Autar, the injured, which is corroborated by evidence of P.W. 2 Rameshwar, P.W. 3 Parmalsingh, P.W. 4 Dilipsingh Yadav, I am of the opinion that there is sufficient material on record to establish the guilt of the accused -appellant. The evidence of injured Ram Autar (P.W. 1) is corroborated by medical evidence. The doctor has found that the injury was caused by Farsa sharp -edged weapon. Shri Saxena then submitted that the x -ray plates have not been 'exhibited. This contention has no merit. The report Ex. P/8 has been exhibited and the same has been proved by Dr. D.K. Jain (P.W. 6). He had taken the x -ray and submitted the report. There is no cross -examination to that effect. No fault can be found. Even otherwise the x -ray plates are on record. It was not required to prove separately. No doubt has been raised in the cross -examination. In view of the medical evidence and the ocular versions, the offence is well established.