JUDGMENT 1. - This is an application-in revision fled by Nava, Hamira, Chela & Poonama convicts against the judgment of the Sessions Judge, Balotra, dated 24th January, 1976, confirming the Judgment of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Banner, by, which Hamira was convicted under section 326, I.P.C and the remaining three petitioners; namely, Nava, Chela and Poonama were convicted under section 326/34, I.P.C. and each of them was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 200/-, in default of payment of fine to further suffer rigorous imprisonment for two months. 2. The prosecution case against the petitioners was as follows Mst. Debo daughter of Lumbo was married to Nava, petitioner, in her childhood. After some years, she began to live with husband Nava in the latter's house. Later on, she developed illicit intimacy with one Sona and one day ran away with him. Her husband Nava reported the matter to the police and recovery Mst. Debo from the possession of Sona with the aid of police. After her recovery Mst. Debo was produced the before Deputy Superintendent of Police, Balotra. Mst Debo expressed her desire before the Deputy Superintendent of Police to go and live with her paramour Sona. The petitioners were annoyed with Mst. Debo on this score Some how or the other Mst. Debo was brought by Nava, petitioner, in his house, wherein she was detained and compelled to live with him. In the night between 13th and 14th May, 1974, Mst. Debo was lying asleep on a cot in a `Oria' of the house of her husband Nava. At that time Hamira and Chela petitioners approached her, gaped her mouth, beat her with lathis and life her cot and brought her on the same cot to another place inside the house of Nava. From there she was dragged to an open place which lay at the distance of about 600 Paundas near a tree of Bavali, where she was thrown on the ground. Chela petitioner sat on her breasts while Poonama caught hold of her hands and Hamira cut her nose and ears with a knife. She was beaten with hands and lathies also by Hamira, Chela and Nava petitioners. As a result of the cutting of the nose and ears Mst. Debo's wounds bled profusely. Chela petitioner sat on her breasts while Poonama caught hold of her hands and Hamira cut her nose and ears with a knife. She was beaten with hands and lathies also by Hamira, Chela and Nava petitioners. As a result of the cutting of the nose and ears Mst. Debo's wounds bled profusely. Blood fell on the place of occurrence and on her clothes, which she was wearing on her body. Besides, her bangles were broken and her silver earrings also fell on the spot. Then all the four petitioners forcibly made Debo to sit on their lathis for the purpose of taking her to her father's house situated in the same village. The petitioners brought her in front of the house of her father and left her there after calling out her mother Navi and telling her in a loud tone "TERI MAA KO SAMBHAL" (take care of your mother). After leaving Mst. Debo in front of the house of her father all the four petitioners ran away from there. Mst Debo's mother Mst. Navi saw the miserable condition of her daughter. She rushed to make a report to the Sarpanch of the village, namely, Mana Ram about the incident. On receiving the report, Mana Ram and one Dharma Rani came to the house of Mst Debo's father Lumba and saw Mst Debo lying injured. Lumba was not present in his house. He had gone to some other village for some work. On the next day in the morning he returned to his house and came to know of all that had happened to his daughter. Lumba then carried Mst. Debo to police station, Gudha Malani in a bullok-cart along with Mana Ram, Sarpanch Ratan Singh. Incharge of the Police Station, recorded the statement of Mst Debo and then registered a criminal case on its basis, under section 323, 324, 147 and 326/149, IPC and deputed Prem Singh, Head Constable to make the usual investigation into the matter. Prem Singh took the blood stained clothes of Mst. Debo into his possession, prepared a site-plan, site-inspection memo and arrested Chela and Hamira petitioner. He recovered lathis at the instance of Chela and Hamira. Upon inspection of the site, he found places of broken bangles and silver `Bedlas' of Mst. Debo lying on the place of occurrence. He took these articles into his possession in the presence of Motbirs. Debo into his possession, prepared a site-plan, site-inspection memo and arrested Chela and Hamira petitioner. He recovered lathis at the instance of Chela and Hamira. Upon inspection of the site, he found places of broken bangles and silver `Bedlas' of Mst. Debo lying on the place of occurrence. He took these articles into his possession in the presence of Motbirs. Then he arrested Nava petitioner who produced before him one blood-stained knife and the skin of Debo's nose. The knife and the skin were taken into possession by Ratan Singh. Mst. Debo was sent for medical examination to Dr Bhanwar Lal, at Primary Health Centre, Gudha Malani. The Doctor examined the body of Mst. Debo on 14th May,1974, and found the following injuries on her person : 1. an incised cut-wound starting from the lower border of the bridge of the nose running downwards upto the lower end of the rose dividing half of the nose ; 2. The upper end was 2cms. broad, lower end was 2cms. broad and 1cm. deep in the middle and 2cms. deep at the right opening of the nose 1cm. deep at the left opening of the nose ; 3. an incised wound 3cms. x 4cms over the anterior parts of the legs 15cms, above the right ankle joint running from above downwards; 4. an incised cut wound over the outer border of the left ear in the upper ⅓rd part of the ear; 5. a cut. wound 1/2cm. broad x 3 Cms. long over the upper part of the right ear beginning from the upper anterior ends of the right ear; 6. swelling about 3cms. x 3 cm. over the posterior aspect of the skull on the middle of the occipital region; 7. four scratches on the region of the left lumber; 8 a contusion 3cms. x 2cms. over the left buttock; 9. 5 scratches over the left side of the abdomn running above; 10. two scratches each 5cms. x 1/2cm. downwards over the lover part of the posterior aspect of the thorax running medial to lateral aspect; 11. a scratch 17cms. x 5 ems over the upper part of the right hand extending from shoulder joint to lower ⅓rd of the upper arm on the lateral aspect; 12. an abrasion 7cms. x 3cms. over the posterior aspect of the middle ⅓rd of the right hand; 13. a contusion 10cms. x 11/2cms. a scratch 17cms. x 5 ems over the upper part of the right hand extending from shoulder joint to lower ⅓rd of the upper arm on the lateral aspect; 12. an abrasion 7cms. x 3cms. over the posterior aspect of the middle ⅓rd of the right hand; 13. a contusion 10cms. x 11/2cms. over the lateral region of the upper ⅓rd of the left leg running anterior to posterior aspect. Out of these injuries, injury No. 1 was grievous caused by a sharp-edged weapon, injuries Nos. 2, 3 & 4 were simple caused by a sharp-edged weapon & rest of the injuries were simple in nature caused by hard and blunt weapon. The duration of the injuries was 12 to 15 hours. Debo was admitted in the hospital and remained there for long time on account of her nose being cut and her face as permanently disfigured. The Investigating Officer collected other necessary evidence in the case and, on completion of investigation, filed a charge-sheet against the petitioners in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Barmer, under sections 326, 324 and 323/34 I.P.C. The Chief Judicial Magistrate tried the petitioners and fund them guilty of the aforesaid offences. He, accordingly, convicted & sentenced them in the manner stated above. Aggrieved by these convictions and sentences, the petitioners preferred an appeal in the court of the Sessions judge, Balojra, but their appeal was dismissed and their convictions and sentences were upheld. The petitioners have, therefore, come up in this court in revision. 3. I have carefully gene through the record of the trial court and heard Mr. Bhagwati Prasad appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. K. C. Bhandari, Public Prosecutor, for the State. The first contention put forward before me by Mr. Bhagwati Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioners, is that both the courts below committed an error in convicting the petitioners on the basis of the evidence led by the prosecution in support of its case According to the learned counsel, the prosecution version about the occurrence given out in the first information report was given a complete go by at the trial and a wholly new story was introduced in as much as even the place of occurrence war changed. The above contention has no force. Upon perusal of the first information report, it is clear that Mst. The above contention has no force. Upon perusal of the first information report, it is clear that Mst. Debo claimed to have been sleeping on a cot outside an `Ora', i.e. room of her husband's residential house in immediately prior the incident. At about mid-night her husband's brother Dhanna came to her cot and sat on her breasts. She raised a hue and cry, which attracted Chela son of Sardra to that place. Chela asked her to keep quiet Then Dhanna went away from there and she slept again. After sometime, Hamira and Chela, petitioners, lifted her cot on which she was sleeping and then took her inside the room. Mst. Debo woke up but these persons pressed her mouth with their hands. In the `Ora' she was beaten by Hamira and Chela with sticks. Hamira gave her two lathi blows, one fell on her left leg and the other fell on the left thigh. Chela also struck a lathi blow on her right leg. Then both of them dragged her out of the `Ora' and brought her in the open Chowk, where Chela openly asked his companions to cut her nose. Thereafter Virma, Ganga Das, Dhanna, Nava and Poonma assembled there. Chela caught her both hands and placed his knees on her chest. She raised an outcry, which attracted Gajja to the place of occurrence, but Gajja was not allowed by the miscreants to come near her. Then Poonma caught hold of her head, Ganga Das caught hold of her legs while Harmira cut her nose with a knife. Then her husband Nava twisted her right hand and gave her fist blows. All the miscreants then dragged her out of the `Ora' and took her to an open place where her both the ears were cut by Hamira with a knife. Then she was forcibly carried on lathis to the house of her father. 4. In her statement also at the trial she clearly stated that her cot on which she was lying asleep was lifted up and taken inside the `Ora' by Hamira and Chela, who thereafter pressed her mouth and beat her with lathis. She further stated that Chela gave her two lathi blows on her left leg and another on her left thigh. Hamira also gave her a lathi blow which fell on her right leg. She further stated that Chela gave her two lathi blows on her left leg and another on her left thigh. Hamira also gave her a lathi blow which fell on her right leg. At the trial also she further stated that she was dragged out of the `Ora' by Poonma, Hamira, Chela and Nava and brought to an open place which lay at a distance of about 300 paundas from her husband's house. According to her version at the trial, her nose and ears were cut by Hamira at that place. She did not omit to state that before her nose and ears were cut by Hamira, Poonma had caught hold of her head and Chela sat upon her breast, and thereafter she was manhandled and beaten had forcibly carried to her father's house. The only difference between her version given in the first information report and at the trial is that in the first information report she stated that her nose was cut by Hamira in the open Chowk and her ears were cut by him at an open place which lay at some distance from the house of her husband, while in her statement at the trial she stated that her nose and ears were cut by Hamira with a knife at an open place near a `Bavali' tree which lay at a distance of about 500 Paundas from the Dhani of her husband. She was confronted with and contradicted by relevant portions of the first information report. When confronted; she stated that her rose and ears were not cut at different places but at one place. Mr. Bhagwati Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioners, has laid much emphasis on the referred to above discrepancy between her versions which she gave on different occasions about the occurrence. According to him, the prosecution cannot be permitted to reconstruct an altogether a new story which does not find place in the first information report and in this correction he referred me to Daryayi Ram v. The State, ILR (1951) 1 Raj 806 , wherein it was observed that if a story given at the trial differs in essential particulars from there given in the first in the first information report, it is regarded highly suspicious and the accused is entitled to the benefit of doubt on the basis of such discrepancies. Mr. Mr. Bhagvati Prasad relied upon an authority of the Supreme Court also reported in Sadhu Singh v. The State of PEPSU, AIR 1954 SC 271 wherein the following observations were made in papa 12 at page 276 : "It seems to us that the High Court was in error in thinking that there was not a single difference between the statements made by the witnesses in the first information report and the statements made at the trial, which went to the root of the case. As above pointed out, the whole version as to the nature and character of the act of the accused had been completely changed. An act which on the facts stated in the first information report and on the statements made to the police may well be regarded either accidental or rash and negligent, has been deliberately made to look like an act of deliberate murder. If such a difference does not go to the root of the case it is difficult to conceive what else can fall within that class of cases. We are therefore of the opinion that the High Court was clearly in error in holding that the accused was guilty of the offence of murder under section 302, IPC." He cited another case Devilal v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1971 SC 1444 wherein it was observed by their Lordships as follows : "In the present case, two of the accused are held both by the trial court and by the High Court not to have been anywhere near the scene of occurrence. The entire prosecution case was that those two persons pointed to the enemies, namely, Motaram and his son and nephew. The further prosecution case was that those two persons give the order to the accused to attack them. Those two persons opened the gun fire. Therefore, when those two persons are found both by the Sessions Court and the High Court not to have been present the whole prosecution case changes colour and becomes unworthy of belief." In the instant case, as indicated above, the story given by Mst Debo at the trial does not differ in essential particulars from the one given by her in the first information report. The difference between her versions in the first information report and at the trial pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioners does not go to the root of the case and is not of material significance. It cannot be said that the prosecution has reconstructed a new case to the prejudice of the petitioners Mst. Debo was sleeping on a cot immediately before the incident started. The cot on which she was sleeping was lifted up and was taken inside an `Ora' where she was manhadled and badly beaten. Her mouth was pressed and she was not in a position to raise a hue and cry. She was dragged out of the `Ora' to an open Chowk and from there she was forcibly taken to an open place, which lay at some distance from the house of her husband. In this state of affairs it is probable that she might not have exactly remembered at which place her nose was cut and where her ears were cut by the petitioners. H(r entire testimony cannot be discarded merely on the ground of this minor discrepancy about the place where her nose was cut. The authorities cited by the learned counsel for the petitioners are, therefore, distinguishable on the facts of this case. 5. Another contradiction pointed out by Mr. Bhagwati Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioners, in the versions given out by Mst. Debo is that in the first information report she implicated Birma, Ganga Das and Dhanna in the commission of the crime apart from the four petitioners, but in her statement at the trial she even denied the presence of these three persons at the place of occurrence. Likewise, in her statement at the trial she denied the pretence of her brother Gajja at the time and place of occurrence, while in the first information report she clearly mentioned that Gajja had come to the place of occurrence on hearing her cries. Of course in her first information report is Mst. Debo implicated Birma, Ganga Das and Dhanna in the commission of the crime and ascribed some overt acts to them also, but in her statement at the trial she did not say a single word against them. Of course in her first information report is Mst. Debo implicated Birma, Ganga Das and Dhanna in the commission of the crime and ascribed some overt acts to them also, but in her statement at the trial she did not say a single word against them. She even denied their presence at the time and place of occurrence but on account of this contradiction her evidence against the four petitioners cannot be disbelieved, especially when it finds corroboration from the independent evidence of her mother. The version given out by Mst. Debo at the trial is not entirely false or without foundation. The Court in such a case has to make an effort to get at the truth by applying the principle of separating grain from chaff and it cannot reject the whole of her evidence as unworthy of acceptance, because it is exaggerated or false in some respects. No importance can be attached to the discrepancy with regard to the presence of her brother Gajja at the time and place of occurrence, because Gajja in his statement did not say that he was present near the place of occurrence and was prevented from going to his sister by the four petitioners. 6. Both the courts below have relied upon the evidence of Mst. Debo after careful scrutiny thereof and I see, absolutely, no reason to take a different view on her evidence, especially when it is corroborated in some essential particulars by the testimony of her mother Mst Navi P.W. 7. Mst. Navi definitely stated in her deposition at the trial that she was sleeping in the court yard of her house. In the early morning she heard some noise and got up from her bed. She saw Chela, petitioner, who was saying to her `take care of your mother'. Along with Chela she saw Hamira, Poonama and Nava petitioner also. Then she saw her daughter whose mouth was gagged. She opened her daughter's mouth and saw that her nose and ears were cut and blood was coming out of the nose. She further saw all the petitioners going away from there leaving behind her daughter Mst. Debo near the doors of her `Dhani'. There is no reason to disbelieve the testimony of Mst. Navi, especially when her testimony has not been shaken in cross-examination. Mst. She further saw all the petitioners going away from there leaving behind her daughter Mst. Debo near the doors of her `Dhani'. There is no reason to disbelieve the testimony of Mst. Navi, especially when her testimony has not been shaken in cross-examination. Mst. Navi further stated that her daughter disclosed to her at that time that all the four petitioners had cut her nose and ears. 7. Mst. Debo's evidence is further corroborated by Dr. Bhanwar Lal Parihar, P.W.9, as to the injuries sustained by her. Dr. Bhanwar Lal Parihar clearly stated that there was an incised cut wound starring from the lower border of the bridge of the nose running downwards upto the lower end of the nose dividing half of the nose and there were incised cut wounds over the upper be order of the left ear and over the upper part of the right ear. According to the opinion of the Doctor, these injuries were caused by a sharp edged weapon Besides these injuries there were other eight injuries on different parts of Mst Debo's body, which were caused by blunt weapons. Hence, upon careful review of the entire evidence. I am of the view that the prosecution has succeeded in proving its case beyond any shadow of doubt and both the courts below rightly convicted Hamira of the offence under S 326, IPC and the other three petitioners, namely, Nava, Chela and Poonma under section 326/34, IPC. The contention of Mr. Bhagwati Prasad that the petitioners had no common intention to cut the nose and the ears of Mst. Debo is not acceptable, because all of them joined together with the common intention of causing grievous hurt to Mst. Debo and actually took her forcibly to a lonely place where her nose and ears were cut by Hamira petitioner with the aid of the other three Petitioners, namely, Nava, Chela and Poonma Nava, Chela and Poonma petitioners, therefore, 'were constructively liable for the grievous hurt caused by their companion Hamira with their help. 8. As regards sentence, it may be observed that the petitioners are convicted of the offence of cutting nose and ears. This offence imports a deliberate design on the part of the petitioners to deal with Mst. Debo in a cruel manner. A severe punishment ought to be imposed in such cases. 8. As regards sentence, it may be observed that the petitioners are convicted of the offence of cutting nose and ears. This offence imports a deliberate design on the part of the petitioners to deal with Mst. Debo in a cruel manner. A severe punishment ought to be imposed in such cases. There are no mitigating circumstances justifying reduction of the sentence passed against the petitioners. 9. The result is that this revision petition filed by the petitioners fails and is hereby dismissed. The petitioners are already in jail. 10. Mr. Bhagwati Parsad orally prayed for grant of certificate for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court. No substantial question of law is involved in this case, which requires authoritative decision by the Supreme Court. The revision petition has been decided on appreciation of evidence. Hence, the oral prayer for leave to appeal is rejected and the leave sought is refused.Revision dismissed. *******