1. The revision is filed against the judgment and order of appeal No ...
1. The revision is filed against the judgment and order of appeal No ... 1. The revision is filed against the judgment and order of appeal No ...
-8-revn280.00started. The persons from these two families gathered there. Duringquarrel, there was pushing and pulling between the husband of thecomplainant and the accused Maruti.When the complainantintervened, the accused gave fist blow on the face of the complainant.Due to this blow, one tooth of the complainant got uprooted and twoteeth became loose. The complainant went to the police station andgave a report against the accused and his wife. The crime No. 225 of88 came to be registered in Nagar Tahsil police station for the offencepunishable under Sections 323, 325, 504 r.w. 34 of I.P.C.Thecomplainant was referred for medical examination. After completion ofinvestigation, charge sheet came to be filed for all these offences. Thetrial court acquitted the wife of the accused and the accused came tobe convicted for the offence punishable under Section 325 of I.P.C. asthe complainant had lost one tooth. The Sessions Court consideredthe circumstance like the scuffle between two male persons of the twofamilies and has held that there is possibility that injury was not causedvoluntarily.10. Nanda (P.W.1), the complainant has given evidence that duringthe incident, the accused Maruti gave a fist blow on her face and dueto said blow she lost one tooth and two teeth became loose in theincident. Exh.20, F.I.R. given by the complainant is consistent on thematerial points with the substantive evidence. Her evidence shows
-9-revn280.00that wife of the accused was carrying of 7 months at the time ofincident. Her evidence and evidence of spot panchnama show thatthere is channel of drainage of water by the side of the road and oneither side of the road there are houses of these two families. There isprobability that the wife of the accused was pouring the water there, asthere was drainage channel.11. Popat (P.W.2), husband of the complainant has given similarevidence. His evidence is that there was scuffle between him and theaccused. His banyan was torn in the incident. It can be said that thereis little bit inconsistency in his version and the version of thecomplainant. The complainant has tried to show that the accused hadmade Popat to fall on the ground and after that the accused assaultedPopat when she intervened. The evidence of Popat shows that theaccused was probably only pushing him and in that attempt banyangot torn.12. The spot panchnama Exh.23 shows that no blood was found onthe spot. Both the Popat and his wife have given evidence thatneighbours gathered at the spot at the relevant time, however, no suchneighbour is examined by the prosecution to give independentevidence. Thus, there are versions of the complainant and Popatwhich can be called interested versions against the accused. One
- Page 1 and 2: -1-revn280.00IN THE HIGH COURT OF J
- Page 3 and 4: -3-revn280.00another), the Privy Co
- Page 5 and 6: -5-revn280.00of Juveniles, the pers
- Page 7: -7-revn280.00of similar nature, ret
- Page 11: -11-revn280.00
-8-revn280.00started. <strong>The</strong> persons from <strong>the</strong>se two families ga<strong>the</strong>red <strong>the</strong>re. Duringquarrel, <strong>the</strong>re was pushing <strong>and</strong> pulling between <strong>the</strong> husb<strong>and</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>complainant <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> accused Maruti.When <strong>the</strong> complainantintervened, <strong>the</strong> accused gave f<strong>is</strong>t blow on <strong>the</strong> face <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> complainant.Due to th<strong>is</strong> blow, one tooth <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> complainant got uprooted <strong>and</strong> twoteeth became loose. <strong>The</strong> complainant went to <strong>the</strong> police station <strong>and</strong>gave a report <strong>against</strong> <strong>the</strong> accused <strong>and</strong> h<strong>is</strong> wife. <strong>The</strong> crime <strong>No</strong>. 225 <strong>of</strong>88 came to be reg<strong>is</strong>tered in Nagar Tahsil police station for <strong>the</strong> <strong>of</strong>fencepun<strong>is</strong>hable under Sections 323, 325, 504 r.w. 34 <strong>of</strong> I.P.C.<strong>The</strong>complainant was referred for medical examination. After completion <strong>of</strong>investigation, charge sheet came to be <strong>filed</strong> for all <strong>the</strong>se <strong>of</strong>fences. <strong>The</strong>trial court acquitted <strong>the</strong> wife <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> accused <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> accused came tobe convicted for <strong>the</strong> <strong>of</strong>fence pun<strong>is</strong>hable under Section 325 <strong>of</strong> I.P.C. as<strong>the</strong> complainant had lost one tooth. <strong>The</strong> Sessions Court considered<strong>the</strong> circumstance like <strong>the</strong> scuffle between two male persons <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> tw<strong>of</strong>amilies <strong>and</strong> has held that <strong>the</strong>re <strong>is</strong> possibility that injury was not causedvoluntarily.10. N<strong>and</strong>a (P.W.1), <strong>the</strong> complainant has given evidence that during<strong>the</strong> incident, <strong>the</strong> accused Maruti gave a f<strong>is</strong>t blow on her face <strong>and</strong> dueto said blow she lost one tooth <strong>and</strong> two teeth became loose in <strong>the</strong>incident. Exh.20, F.I.R. given by <strong>the</strong> complainant <strong>is</strong> cons<strong>is</strong>tent on <strong>the</strong>material points with <strong>the</strong> substantive evidence. Her evidence shows
Change language