RATAN LAL Vs. THE STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Ratan Lal, the applicant before me, was convicted by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Gangapur under section 326 of the Penal Code and sentenced to three months' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 200.00. On appeal to the Additional Sessions Judge, Gangapur the conviction has been altered to one under section 324, but the sentence awarded by the trial court has been maintained.

(2.) The case for the prosecution is that on the 4th of Feb., 1949, at about 10 A.M., the applicant, along with two others, assaulted Ananda and Kalyan with the result that the upper portion of Ananda's left ear was cut out and some injuries were received by Kalyan. The Learned Magistrate acquitted the two co-accused i.e. Ramnath and Jhumaria but convicted Ratanlal under section 326 and sentenced him as above. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, however, held that no grievous injury was caused and, therefore, altered the conviction to one under section 324 and maintained the sentence. The applicant Ratan Lal has come in revision to this Court.

(3.) It has been argued by the learned counsel for the applicant at the very outset that the judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge in appeal cannot be said to be a judgment in accordance with law. No discussion of evidence is given nor have any contradictions in the evidence been brought out. The learned Sessions Judge has simply given the names of all the prosecution witnesses at one place and said that from their evidence it was proved that the applicant caused the ear-injury to Ananda. The learned Government Advocate appearing for the State, has argued that the whole of the evidence has been fully discussed in the judgment of the first court and therefore, it was not necessary for the appellate court to discuss that evidence over again.