- (1.) THIS is a revision petition by Kalya and 6 others against the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge at Gangapur of 30-4-1952, confirming on appeal the judgment of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Gangapur, of 15-4-1952, by which Kalya was convicted Under Section 325, IPC and sentenced to 2 months' R. I. and the other 6 accused were convicted Under Section 147, IPC and sentenced to a fine of Rs. 75/- each or in default they were ordered to suffer 3 weeks' further simple imprisonment.
(2.) THE prosecution case was that on 13-2-1951, Arnba and Pheli threw dust at Mst. Sunder while she was going out for some 'puja'. She complained to Mst. Paran about this and Paran thereupon used abusive language and called Kalya and others to beat Sunder. Kalya and others rushed with lathis and gave her a beating. She received 7 injuries on her person out of which one was on her head which caused a fissured fracture of the skull. The defence of the accused was that they did not take part in this occurrence. The learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate, after holding a trial, held that the injury on the head with fissured fracture was caused by Kalya and the other injuries on the person of Sunder were caused by other accused persons. Kajya was, therefore, convicted Under Section 325, IPC and the others Under Section 147, IPC as stated above. The learned Additional Sessions Judge agreed with the findings of the first Court and upheld the convictions of the accused.
(3.) THREE points have been agitated in this revision petition by the learned Counsel of the accused: 1. According to the statement of Sunder, Goora and Nathi did not hit her before she became unconscious. Whereas according to the other eye-witnesses namely Birdhi and Sukhi both Goora and Nathi took part in beating Mst. Sunder. It is urged that Sunder's statement should have been believed and both Goora and Nathi should have been given the benefit of doubt. 2. The injury on the head of Sunder has been held to be of the nature of grievous hurt because doctor perceived a crack on the skull bone. No measurements of the crack were given by the doctor in his certificate and he could not give any on being questioned. The crack, under these circumstances, should not be, it is stated, considered to be a grievous hurt, as it has not, been proved that the crack was across the bone. 3. The sentence passed by the Court below is severe and should be reduced. ;