1. - This revision petition is directed against the judgment dated 07.10.1994 passed by the learned Addl.District and Sessions Judge, Pai in criminal appeal No.05/1994 whereby the learned appellate Judge dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner and affirmed the judgment and order dated 25.06.1994 as passed by the learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sojat in Criminal Case No.392/1986 convicting the accused petitioner for offence under section 326 and 452 Indian Penal Code2 and sentencing her for offence under section 326 Indian Penal Code to a period of of one year's simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo one month's simple imprisonment and for offence under section 452 Indian Penal Code to three months' simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 200/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo seven days' simple imprisonment.

2. The accusation against the present petitioner had essentially been that on 04.09.1986 at about 07.00 AM the petitioner entered the house of complainant Gheesi and caused grievous injuries with incised teeth so as to separate some portion of the lower lip of the injured and caused other simple injuries also.

3. The investigation was conducted by the Incharge , police Station ,Bagri. Upon submission of the charge sheet after investigation, the petitioner was charged for the offence under section 452, 326 and 323 Indian Penal Code.

4. The learned Magistrate, after taking the evidence of 11 witnesses adduced by the prosecution and after examining the accused under section 313 Criminal Procedure Code, found proved the essential facts for the commission of the offence under section 326 and 452 Indian Penal Code, by making trespass in the residential house of the complainant after making preparation for committing the offence and for causing grievous injuries with sharp edged weapon to Gheesi. The learned trial court came to this conclusion while relying upon the evidence of PW/4 Gheesi and also the statement of PW/3 Lakshmi, the eye witness. The learned Magistrate found no reason to disbelieve the testimony of PW/3 Lakshmi and PW/4 Gheesi, who were the alleged eye witnesses to the incident and in the facts and circumstances of the case , declined to extend the benefit of probation of offenders Act and sentenced the petitioner as indicated above.

5. The learned Addl.Sessions Judge, Pali, while deciding the criminal appeal No.05/1994 endorsed the finding of the learned Magistrate and dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner and affirmed the sentence on the ground that the accused petitioner caused grievous injuries on the lower lip and thereby disfiguration of the face was caused.

6. Assailing the judgment and order aforesaid, the learned counsel for the accused petitioner has strenuously contended that the findings as recorded by the learned trial court, as well as endorsed by the learned appellate court, cannot be sustained because the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Shakeel Ahmed vs. State, Delhi (2004) 10 SCC 103 , held that the teeth of the human being cannot be considered as a deadly weapon as per the description of 'deadly weapon' enumerated under section 326 Indian Penal Code. Thus, the offence committed by the present accused petitioner cannot be escalated to section 326 Indian Penal Code. The counsel for the petitioner contended that the learned trial court, while relying upon the judgment of this Court reported in 1990 WLC (UC) 59, held that the injuries by the teeth comes under the provisions of section 326 Indian Penal Code, whereas in the light of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the above referred case , the judgment relied on by the learned trial court cannot be said to be a good law.

7. The learned counsel for the petitioner also contended that there is no evidence of preparation on the part of the accused petitioner because as per the first information report and the statement recorded during the cou