The main legal point established in the judgment is the reliance on the sole testimony of the injured witness, the sufficiency of evidence for conviction, and the reasons for not granting the benefit of probation of good conduct under the relevant legal provisions.

B.P. KATAKEY, J.—

This revision petition is directed against the judgment dated 22.6.1999 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Belonia, South Tripura in Criminal Appeal No. 11(1) of 1999 dismissing the appeal filed by the revision petitioner by upholding the judgment of conviction dated 18.1.1999 passed by the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Belonia, South Tripura in G.R. Case No. 340 of 1996 convicting the revision petitioner under Section 325 I.P.C. and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 2 years and directing payment of compensation of Rs. 25,000/- in the light of Section 357 of Cr.P.C. to the victim Ratan Baidya, for the loss of his right hand.

2. A criminal proceeding was set in motion pursuant to the first information lodged by Durga Charan Baidya, P.W. 4, father of the injured Ratan Baidya, P.W. 1, alleging that on 25.11.1996 at about 17.30 hours while Ratan Baidya, injured, on way to Belonia town, he had an altercation with the revision petitioner Shantanu Chakraborty, infront of the shop of Subrata Nandi at Bankar on the issue of a hat, while Shantanu threatened him that he will give him a good treatment in future. Thereafter, Ratan Baidya left for Belonia town to participate in a rehearsal of some drama but since the rehearsal did not held he was on way back to his home and at Bankar, Belonia accused Shantanu came frorn behind and stopped him from proceeding further and suddenly took out a dao (sharp cutting weapon) and gave a dao blow aiming the head of Ratan to which Ratan raised1 his right hand to resist the dao blow and as a result his right fore hand was struck with the blow and he received severe injury. The accused again gave another dao blow which Ratan resisted by raising his left hand and as a result of which he received severe cut injury on the left hand also and fell down. The Belonia Police Station on receipt of the said F.I.R. registered a case and upon completion of investigation submitted the charge sheet against the revision petitioner under Section 326 I.P.C. The charge under Section 326 I.P.C. was accordingly framed by the learned Magistrate and when read over and explained to the accused revision petitioner, he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

3. The prosecution in order to bring home the charge against the accused revision petitioner examined as many as 8 witnesses including the victim himself as P.W. 1, Medical Officer of Belonia Civil Hospital Dr. Subrata Pal as P.W. 2, Shri Sukumar Sarkar, Investigating Officer as P.W. 3, Shri Durga Charan Baidya, the father of the victim, who lodged the First Information Report. As P.W. 4, Sri Srimanta Sarkar, Basudeb Dhar and Shri Rakhal Bhowmik, the neighbouring witnesses as EW.5, 6 & 7 and Dr. Jothsnamoy Dutta, Medical Officer of G.B. Hospital, who also examined the victim, as P.W.8. The learned Magistrate, upon consideration of the evidence, on record convicted the accused revision petitioner under Section 325 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 2 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 25,000/- as compensation to the victim in the light of the provision contained in Section 357 of the Cr.P.C. Being aggrieved, the revision petitioner preferred the appeal before the learned Appellate Court, which was, dismissed vide judgment dated 22.6.1999. Hence the present revision petition.

4. 1 have heard Mr. B. Das, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. S. Chakraborty, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. D. Sarkar, learned Public Prosecutor assisted by Mr. A. Ghosh, learned State counsel appearing for the respondents.

5. Mr. Das, learned senior counsel, appearing on behalf of the revision petitioner has submitted that the revision petitioner has. been convicted for the offence under Section 325 Cr.P.C. solely on the basis of the evidence of P.W. 1 Ratan Baidya, the victim to whom the injury was caused. According to the learned senior counsel, the P.W. 1 is not