DEV KARAN Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition is directed against the judgement of Sessions Judge, Bhilwara, dated April 21, 1974, upholding the judgement of Munsiff-Magistrate, Bhilwara, dated March 24, 1972, whereby the learned Magistrate convicted the accused-petitioner under section 326, IPC., and sentenced him to one year's rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 200.00 in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one month.

(2.) The prosecution story in a nut-shell is that bullock of Bhawana (PW 3) strayed into the field of the accused-petitioner on Oct. 7, 1967, at about 5 a.m. Bhawana (PW 3) went to take the bullock out of the field of the accused-petitioner. The accused-petitioner got infuriated and inflicted two axe injuries on the person of Bhawana (PW 3). First information report (Ex. P/4A) of this occurrence was lodged at the police station. Bhilwara, at 9 a.m. Dr. Mangal Singh (PW 6) clinically examined Bhawana (PW 3) and noticed two injuries on his person. The injury report is Ex. P/5. It is alleged that the accused-petitioner also sustained injury during the same occurrence. The first information report given by the accused-petitioner is Ex. D/4. The police after usual investigation submitted challan against the accused-petitioner in the Court of Munsiff-Magistrate, Bhilwara. The learned Magistrate after placing reliance on the statement of the injured Bhawana (PW 3), and the statement of Dr. Mangal Singh (PW 6), convicted the accused-petitioner under section 326 IPC, and sentenced him as mentioned above. Being aggrieved the accused-petitioner challenge his conviction and sentence before the Sessions Judge, Bhilwara, without any success. Hence this revision petition.

(3.) Looking to the preponderance of evidence on record and the concurrent finding of the two courts below the learned counsel for the accused petitioner after arguing the case for sometime ultimately conceded that there are no sufficient grounds to challenge the conviction of the accused-petitioner on merits as such it is not necessary for me to consider the prosecution evidence in detail and all the circumstances brought forth on the record by the prosecution to establish the guilt against the accused.