TANNU MAL Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition is directed against the judgment dated Aug. 18, 1971, of the learned Sessions Judge, Ganganagar, upholding the conviction and sentence awarded to the accused-petitioner by Munsiff Magistrate, Ganganagar. The accused was tried before the learned Munsiff and First Class Magistrate, Ganganagar for offences punishable under section 323, I.P.C. The gist of the offences charged against the petitioner was that he aimed a blow with a stick on the head of PW 1 Jethananda, which fell on Bansilal (PW 2), as a result of which Bansilal received an injury on his wrist. The prosecution case was supported by Jethananda (PW I), Bansilal (PW 2) and Dr. Hargovind Singh (PW 4), PW 2 Bansilal is the injured person, whose presence at the scene of occurrence cannot be doubted. The learned Munsiff-Magistrate convicted the accused-petitioner under section 323, I.P.C., and sentenced him to pay a fine of Rs. 250.00 and in default of payment of which to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of two months. The accused-petitioner preferred an appeal to the Court of Session against his conviction and sentence. The learned Sessions Judge on re-appreciation of the evidence rejected the appeal preferred by the accused-petitioner. The accused-petitioner thereupon preferred the present revision petition.

(2.) I have carefully gone through the evidence led on behalf of the prosecution and do not see any reason to interfere with the concurrent view held by the learned Munsiff-Magistrate, Ganganagar, and the learned Sessions Judge, Ganganagar. It is no doubt true that the complaint of this offence was filed after sometime, and the witnesses examined in this case are interested persons, but that cannot by itself be held to be a sufficient ground for disbelieving the prosecution evidence and particularly when it has been accepted by two courts below. I accordingly hold that the petitioner was rightly convicted for causing injury to Bansilal. The sentence awarded cannot be said to be excessive.

(3.) I accordingly confirm the conviction and the Sentence recorded against the accused-petitioner and dismiss the revision petition.