DAVE, J.—This revision petition is directed against the judgment dt. 26.06.1990, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Jaipur District, Jaipur, confirming the judgment passed by the learned Addl. Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, No.l, Jaipur Distt. Jaipur, whereby he convicted the accused for the offence under S. 326 IPC and sentenced him to undergo two years simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 100/-. In default of payment of fine he was to further undergo one months simple imprisonment.

(2) Briefly stating the facts are that a case was registered by the S.H.O. Police Station, Bajaj Nagar, Jaipur, on 12.12.1980, on the statement of Smt. Shanti Devi, wherein she stated that her husband made her fall on the cot and gave a bite on her nose. She shouted and then ran for help to the residence of her uncle-in-law Girdharilal. Thereafter, Nanak Ram Patel, came and scolded her husband. That she has been married for last 18 years and the attitude of her husband towards her had not been good. She stated that before 8 years, he had also biten her nose. On this statement, a case for offence under S. 325 IPC was registered which was later on converted in S. 326 IPC and on completion of investigation a charge-sheet was submitted. The prosecution examined as many as 10 witnesses in support of its case and the accused none.

(3) The trial court, convicted and sentenced the accused appellant as indicated above. The appeal preferred was also dismissed.

(4) In this revision petition, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the conviction of the appellant for the offence under S. 326 IPC is bad in law in as much as no evidence has been led to show that the injury is grievous as defined in Section 320 IPC. It is submitted that unless the case falls within the clauses mentioned in Section 320 IPC till then it would not be safe to hold him guilty for offence under S. 326 IPC particularly, for two reasons first is that she has alleged previous biting of the nose also and secondly, according to her own statement, her husband used to get fits of insanity and it cannot be said that in that act he caused injury which comes within the purview of voluntary causing grievous injury.

(5) Learned Public Prosecutor, has supported the judgment of courts below and submitted that there is a concurrent finding of fact & this court should not interfere when after the appreciation of evidence two courts have concurred. It is further submitted that the husband has acted cruelty in causing an injury on the nose of his own wife and no lenient view can be taken in such a matter. In normal course no interference is done in the revisional jurisdiction with the findings arrived at by the courts below, yet exception to this rule, the Court has to consider the points raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner, in case, they are born out from the record. Two important questions have been raised in this case. One is that there is caused is grievous injury within the meaning of sec. 320 IPC and secondly, there is no medical evidence on record to show that the injury no evidence that it is a case of voluntary causing grievous hurt. In view of the statement of Shanti Devi in her own statement, the accused was possibly under a fits of insanity.

(6) In the instant case, when Smt. Shanti Devi, was taken to hospital and was taken to Medico Legal Jurist, it appears that she refused to get herself medically examined as she was no intending to make any case against the petitioner to that extent a document or record bears her thumb impression & the signe also of Medico Legal Jurist. However, she did not undergo the treatment. The prosecution has examined P.W. 6 Dr. B.S. Chandalia, who was head of the department of reconstruction surgery and he is his examination in Chief has stated that the patient was operated in his ward under his guidance. He further stated that the injury sustained by Smt. Shanti Devi resulted in permanent disfiguration. This witness however, could not stand

Click Here to Read the rest of this document