SURAJ MAL Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a revision petition against the judgment of the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge No. 2, Jodhpur dated 6-5-1994 whereby while acquitting the petitioner under Section 326, IPC, convicted him under Section 324, IPC and was released under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act.

(2.) Charge against the accused-petitioner was that on 29-5-1998, in the night at 10.30 p.m. accused-petitioner inflicted simple and grievous injuries with sharp edged weapon on the person of Abdul Razak, near Rahul Motors, Chopasni Road, Jodhpur. The report of the incident was lodged by Mohd. Ibrahim. The police investigated the case. Medical examination of the injured was conducted and after investigation, challan was filed under Sections 326 and 324, IPC. The learned Magistrate framed charges against the accused-petitioner accordingly to which he pleaded not guilty. Prosecution examined eight witnesses. Statement of accused was recorded Under Section 313, Cr.P.C. He produced two witnesses. After hearing the arguments, the learned Magistrate convicted the accused-petitioner under Section 324, IPC with one year's rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default of payment of fine to undergo two months imprisonment. He was also convicted under Section 326, IPC with two years' rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- in default of payment of fine to undergo two months' imprisonment. In appeal, the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge No. 2, Jodhpur, acquitted the accused under Section 326, IPC. However, conviction under Section 324, IPC was maintained but granted probation to the accused-petitioner, against which this revision petition has been filed.

(3.) Ms. Abhilasha Bora, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that it is a case of no evidence and purely on the basis of the testimony of the injured and the doctor who has proved only the signature of the Medical Jurist on the injury report, conviction has been recorded. According to the learned Counsel for the petitioner, there were two eye-witnesses Ibrahim and Mohd. Rahuf and out of these two eye-witnesses, Ibrahim was not produced and Mohd. Rahuf, who has been said to be the eye-witness, is not a reliable witness because the injured has stated in the cross-examination that he came later on. According to the learned Counsel, the injuries are also not proved as the injured says in his statement that blood came out and fell on the ground but the I.O. has stated in evidence that no blood was found on the site. The learned Counsel has urged for acquittal under Section 324, IPC.