1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Criminal Revision No. 138/2009 Sujat Khan Ismail Khan ..v.s. State of Maharashtra, thr. P.S. Ramdaspeth, Akola --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's order of directions and Registrar's orders --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mr. J. B. Kasat, Advocate for applicant. Mr. D. M. Kale, A.P.P. for non applicant. CORAM:- R. Y. GANOO, J. DATED:- 7 th AUGUST, 2009. 1. The applicant faced trial in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Akola in Regular Criminal Case No. 826/2002 under Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate at Akola by judgment and order dated 12.07.2007, convicted the applicant under Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to suffer simple imprisonment for six months and pay a fine of Rs. 500/-. It was also ordered that the applicant shall undergo simple imprisonment for one month in default of payment of fine. Against this judgment and order dated 12.06.2007, the petitioner has filed Regular Criminal Appeal No. 34/2006 in the Court of Sessions Court. The said appeal came to be assigned to the learned Additional Sessions Judge by judgment and order dated 19.05.2009, 2 dismissing the appeal and in a way confirmed the order of conviction passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate Akola. 2. Before this Court the learned Advocate Mr. Kasat appearing on behalf of the applicant submitted that both the Courts have arrived at an improper conclusion on the basis of record and the matter is required to be reconsidered at the hands of this Court in revisional jurisdiction. In this connection, it may be stated that the prosecution case deals with an incident which is said to have taken place on 08.06.2002 when the applicant assaulted the victim Jakirkhan Ismailkhan with the help of knife while said Jakirkhan was in the house. The said Jakirkhan suffered injuries and that is how the first information report came to be lodged and the criminal law was set in motion. The prosecution has examined as many as eight witness in support of its case. The first informant Akil Khan (PW1), Jakir Khan, the victim (PW2), Imran Khan (PW3) another important witness and Dr. Amol Shrikrishna Ghorpade (PW7). Of course panchas and the Investigating Officer were also examined. The applicant came out with a 3 defence of denial and in the alternative he pleaded the defence under Section 84 of the Indian Penal Code. The applicant examined his brother Karim Khan Ismail Khan DW1, Mujahid Khan Abdulla Khan Manjar (DW2), Dr. anant Deorao Gawali (DW3). This was done to show that the applicant was a person of unsound mind at the time of commission of alleged offence. 3. Both the courts have considered the evidence on record and arrived at conclusion that the knife was used and the injury suffered to the victim namely Jakir Khan cannot be termed as understood within the meaning of Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code. Both the Courts have arrived at a conclusion the prosecution has been able to prove that the applicant inflicted woulds upon the said Jakir Khan and the entire act on behalf of the applicant was with a view to cause grievous hour. Both the courts have accepted that the knife is a deadly weapon as understood within the meaning of Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code. 4. So far as the stand of the applicant as regard the defence of insanity, both the Courts have declined to 4 accept the said defence by disbelieving evidence giving reasons as to why the said defence is required to be negatived and after having gone through the relevant documents and the judgments, I am inclined to observe that the Courts below have rightly rejected the stand of the applicant that at the relevant time of the incident the applicant was of unsound mind. In fact the overt act on the part of that applicant in the nature of carrying a knife on his person while entering the house of Jakirkhan is clearly indicative of the fact that the applicant made preparation to cause hurt to Jakirkhan and that he completed the said act, which resulted in causing grievous hurt. 5. In my view, both the courts have arrived at proper conclusion on the basis of evidence before it. No case is made out for interference in revisional jurisdiction of the this Court. The revision is liable to be dismissed at the stage of admission. Hence, the order. The revision application is dismissed. JUDGE kahale