The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of the nature of injuries and the application of Section 320 of the Indian Penal Code in determining the severity of the injuries.

HARI SHANKAR PRASAD, J.

( 1 ) THE revision application is directed against the judgment dated 27-11-2000 passed in Session Trial No. 102/98, whereby learned 2nd additional Sessions Judge, Dhanbad acquitted Opposite Party No. 2 under Sections 307 and 326 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as "the Code") and convicted the Opposite Party No. 2 under Section 324 of the Code.

( 2 ) PROSECUTION case in short is that the petitioner as informant gave her Fardbayen on 11-11-97 in Central Hospital, Saraidhela in an injured condition to the fact that at about 9. 30 a. m. this petitioner informant was standing near the bus stand and at that time Opposite Party No. 2 accused came there by a scooter and after parking the same he took out a small box from the dickey of the scooter and poured the same on her head and face, as a result of which her face and eyes started burning and she started crying and fell down and opposite party accused uttered that since you did not obey my order. I am, therefore, burning you. " On the basis of the said fardbayen the police registered a case under Sections 324, 326 and 307 of the Code. After investigation I. O. submitted chargesheet under Sections 324, 326 and 307 of the Code. Charges under the aforesaid sections were framed against the opposite party No. 2 accused. Trial proceeded and in course of trial witnesses were examined and after considering oral and documentary evidence of the parties learned 2nd Additional. Sessions Judge acquitted the opposite party No. 2 accused under Sections 307 and 326 of the Code and considered him under Section 324 of the Code and sentenced him to undergo RI for three years. At the trial stage opposite party No. 2 accused had taken a plea of false implication by the petitioner informant. The opposite party No. 2 accused has appeared in this case.

( 3 ) THE learned counsel appearing for the petitioner-informant assailed the judgment on the ground that the learned Court below ought to have appreciated the materials on record and should have convicted the accused O. P. No. 2 under Sections 326 and 307 of the Code. The learned counsel further pointed out that the material witnesses have supported the case and acquittal of the accused under Sections 326 and 307 of the code on the ground that police did not produce the seized articles. The learned counsel further pointed out that application of section 6 of the Indian Evidence Act was there but learned Court below overlooked this provision under Section 6 of the Indian evidence Act and came to an erroneous finding. The learned counsel further assailed the judgment on the ground that Section 320 of the Code has not been taken into consideration. ( 4 ) IN this case prosecution has examined altogether 18 witnesses and out of 18 witnesses two witnesses namely PW 1 Sarita kumari and PW 2 Sakrani Devi have been declared hostile. PW 5 Ramesh Chauhan has also been declared hostile. PW 9 Jagarnath singh has also been declared hostile and rest of the witnesses have supported the case. The learned Court below on the basis of evidence available on record though acquitted the opposite party No. 2 accused under Sections 307 and 326 of the Code but found him guilty under Section 324 of the Code sentenced him to undergo R. I. for three years and during course of hearing of the revision application it was brought to the notice of the Court that convict, who is opposite party No. 2 in this revision application did not prefer appeal against the judgment and order of sentence, so it will not be proper to discuss the evidence led by the prosecution because convict opposite party no. 2 by not filing any appeal against the judgment and order of the sentence accepted the evidence and sentence and also accepted the fact that he was guilty under Section 324 of the Code.

( 5 ) THIS revision application has been filed on behalf of the petitioner informant for a finding by this Court that acquittal of opposite party No. 2 under Se