1 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH ; JABALPUR Cr.R.No. 209/2011 Sonu alias Soni Singh Vs. State of M.P. For the Applicant : Shri R.P.Mishra, Advocate. For the Respondent : Smt Nirmala Nayak, GA Heard on the question of admission. ORDER (02/09/2011) This revision is directed on behalf of the applicant/accused, being aggrieved by the judgment dated 9.12.2010 passed by the Special Judge constituted under the Schedule Caste and Schedule Tribe Act ( in short the Act) Seoni in Special Case No.59/09 convicting and sentencing the applicant under section 324 of the IPC with fine of Rs.3000/-. 2. The facts giving rise to this revision in short are that the applicant being member of the community which is not covered under the Act, on dated 11.8.2009 at about 11.30 in the morning, went to the field of one Bari Bai (PW 1) (covered under the Act) the complainant, where she was doing her agricultural work and started throwing stone and also gave her filthy abuses with the name of her caste and also with intention to humiliate her on account of her caste. In continuation of such act, he also gave her the blow of Axe, resultantly, she sustained the injuries on her thighs, fore arms and also on fingers of both the hands. On her shouting, Raju (PW 3) and one Rajendra came there to rescue her, on which, after giving a criminal threat to her life the applicant fled away from the place of incident. On lodging the report of the incident at P.S Ghansour, the victim was sent to the hospital where her MLC report was prepared, according to which, two incised wounds were found in her fingers of left and right hands respectively. The applicant was arrested and after holding the investigation, he was charge sheeted for the offence under section 294,324,506 of the IPC read with section 3(1)(x) of the Act. 3. On framing the charges of such offence against the applicant, he abjured the same, on which, the trial was held. On appreciation, the applicant was 2 acquitted from all other charges except the charge of section 324 of the IPC in which he was convicted and punished with fine of Rs.3000/- with a direction that on depositing such fine, the same be given to the victim complainant. Being dissatisfied with such conviction and sentence the applicant has come forward to this court with this revision. 4. The applicant's counsel, after taking me through the evidence and the exhibited papers on record said that on proper appreciation of the same, it could not be deemed that the victim sustained incised wound because of any blow of an Axe caused by the applicant. The same was sustained by her on falling down on the stone and subsequently the applicant was falsely implicated by her in the present matter. With these submissions, he prayed for admission and allowing this revision and extending acquittal to the applicant. 5. Having heard the counsel, after going through the record of the trial court including the deposition of the victim Bari Bai (PW1), the supporting witnesses, namely, Jaggu (PW 2) and also the witness Raju alias Rajesh (PW 3), who although turned hostile, but proved the presence of the applicant on the spot at the time of the incident and the deposition of Dr. Yashwant Sharma (PW 6) who examined the victim and prepared the MLC report (Ex.P/9), I am of the considered view that the trial court has not committed any error in appreciation of the evidence in holding guilty to the applicant under section 324 of the IPC. The approach of the trial court in this regard is in consonance with the ocular as well as the medical evidence. As per deposition of the doctor, besides the other injuries, the victim sustained two incised wounds, one in the finger of right hand while other in the finger of left hand. In such premises, it could not be said that the case of section 324 IPC was not made out against the applicant. 6. In view of the aforesaid, I have not found any infirmity, illegality or perversity or anything against the propriety of the law in the impugned judgment holding conviction and sentence to the applicant which require any interference at this stage. Consequently, this revision being devoid of any merits is hereby dismissed at the stage of admission in motion hearing itself. (U.C.Maheshwari) Judge MKL 3