RUSHI NAIK Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a revision against the appellate Judgment of the Additional Sessions judge of Ganjam, maintaining the conviction of the petitioner under Section 325 I. P. C. and the sentence of two months' rigorous imprisonment passed on him by the Judicial Magistrate of Kodala.

(2.) THE allegation against the petitioner was that he intervened in a private quarrel between the females of his house and those of his co-villager named Kasinath senapati (P. W. 1) on 27-6-1959 and assaulted the said Kasinath Senapati who is an old man aged 64 years. In the course of the assault, it is said, he gave fist blows on his mouth and also threw him on the ground. In consequence of this assault two of his teeth got dislocated and one of them actually fell on the ground. Kasinath sustained several injuries all over his body. He reported the matter to the village Karji, Gobardhan (P. W. 6) on the same day, and the latter prepared a report (Ext. 2) which was signed by Kasina'h Senapati and taken to the Police station at Purushottom-pur two miles away where a formal F. I. R. Ext. 5 was drawn up on 28-6-1959 by the Officer-in-charge, P. W. 8. Investigation at the earlier stages was done by his A. S. I. who sent Kasinath for medical examination to P. W. 7. The broken tooth was also produced by Kasinath before the Police and it was also shown to the Medical Officer. The Medical Officer found that the right central incisor tooth of the lower law had fallen from its socket and thera was bleeding from the socket. He also found the left central incisor tooth of the lower jaw dislocated and some bleeding from its socket. In addition to these two injuries there were five other injuries, bruises and swellings on his right forearm, knee joint, lower lip and the bridge of the nose. The injuries to his two teeth were held to be grievous in nature and according to the Medical Officer they were caused by blows with fists or any hard and blunt weapon. One of the teeth that had fallen fitted in the socket in which bleeding was noticed. The Medical officer, however stated that the injuries could also have been caused by a fall.

(3.) TO prove the charge against the petitioner the prosecution relied not only on the evidence ot the injured person, Kasinath Senapati, but also on that of three other respectable persons, namely P. Ws. 2, 3 and 5. They have all spoken about the scuffle and the giving of fist blows by the petitioner to Kasinath, and his being thrown on the ground. There are doubtless some discrepancies in their evidence but these witnesses have been believed by two-courts of fact and I am not inclined to differ from their finding as regards their appreciation of the evidence of these witnesses. 3a. The petitioner has also taken no consistent plea. In his statement under section 342 Cr. P. C. he suggested that he did not intervene in the quarrel amongst the females but the informant namely Kasinath Senapati deliberately broke his own teeth (as he is an old man whose teeth were already loose) and then falsely charged the petitioner with having caused such an injury. But during the cross-examination of Kasinath (P. W. 1) by the petitioner it was suggested that there was a scuffle between the petitioner and Kasinath when the petitioner tried to intervene in order to prevent an assault on his wife and that during the course of that scuffle Kasinath fell down and broke his teeth. The cross-examination of the Medical Officer was also directed to show that the dislocation of the teeth could have been caused by a fall. But this suggestion of the petitioner during the cross examination of P. W. 1 and his own statement under Section 342 i. P. C. must bo rejected in view of the clear testimony of three eyewitnesses P. Ws. 2. 3 and 5 who have been believed by the two courts of fact. It must accordingly be held that the petitioner by giving violent blows on the face of the old man aged about 64 years and throwing him on the ground, caused dislocation of his teeth, and thus caused grievous hurt under Section 325 I. P. C.