Full Judgment
Surendra Nath Bhargava, J.
1. Mahesh Chand son of Ramcharan who was at the relevant time aged about 19 years was heroine of a 'Nautanki' party of which Sarnamsingh petitioner was also a member. Parents of Mahesh Chandra did not like that their son should go astray and asked him to leave the Nautanki Mandli. It seems that Sarnamsingh was worried about the heroine leaving the Nautanki Mandli and consequently on June 23 1980, he took Mahesh Chandra to his house and insisted upon him not leave the Mandli, On refusal of Mahesh Chandra to continue to be member and heroine of the Mandli, the petitioner chopped off the nose of Mahesh Chandra from his face and for that he was prosecuted in the court of the learned Chief Judl. Magistrate, Dholpur who helped him guilty for the offence under Section 326 I.P.C. and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for 3-1/2 years and to a fine of Rs. 100/- and in default of payment of fine to a further rigorous imprisonment for a term of one month. The period during which he remained under detention during investigation and trial was set off against the sentence The petitioner filed a criminal appeal before the court of Sessions which was decided by the earned Additional Sessions Judge, No. 3 Dholpur by his judgment dated July 8, 1982. The learned Addl. Sessions Judge, reduced the sentence of imprisonment from 3 years 6 months to 3 years but the amount of fine was increased to Rs. 1,000/-.
2. Sarnam Singh has come in revision before this Court. When the case was called for hearing the learned Counsel for the petitioner did not appear & therefore the learned Public Prosecutor was heard. At the time of dictation of this order, the learned Counsel for the petitioner appeared and he was also heard.
3. Both the trial court as well as the Additional Sessions Judge has Placed reliance on the testimony of Mahesh Chandra PW 1, and they held that since Mahesh Chandra was not interested to continue to remain heroine of 'Nautanki Mandli' and rightly, his parents did not want too that their son should go astray, but the petitioner did not want that the heroine should leave the Mandli and insisted upon Mahesh Chandra to continue as heroine and upon refusal of Mahesh Chandra to continue, the petitioner chopped off the nose from the face of Mahesh Chandra. This finding of fact cannot be interfered in revision and there is no obstacle in law that conviction can be based on the solitary testimony of a witness if it inspires the confidence and the test of credibility. So far as the defence version is concerned, it cannot be believed for more than one reason. Firstly, the petitioner in his examination under Section 313 Cr. P.C. did not say a word about the defence version. Secondly, the defence version was not even suggested to Mahesh Chandra in his cross-examination and thirdly, the defence witness Rajkumar examined on behalf of the petitioner at least acknowledged that there was a dispute between Mahesh Chandra and the petitioner regarding 'Nautanki' affair. The injury report Ex. P 3 goes to show that Mahesh Chandra had incised would on lower 2/3 of the septum of both nostrils and the nose was chopped off to the bone of both nostrils, making inverted incised wound. The injury was by a sharp weapon and grievous in nature. The petitioner was rightly held guilty by both the courts below and was rightly sentenced by the Additional Sessions Judge, Dholpur under Section 326 I.P.C. to rigorous imprisonment for three years and to a fine of Rs. 1,000/- with the default clause.
4. This petition has no force in it and it is hereby dismissed.