JUDGMENT 1. - Appellant Amarji @ Amra has preferred this appeal against"the judgment passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Udaipur dated 21st January, 1975 by which he was convicted for the offence under section 326 Indian Penal Code and sentenced to three years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 100/- in default to undergo three months rigorous imprisonment. The facts of the case giving rise to this appeal are that Juma was the wife of the appellant. The relations between the spouses were strained and Smt. Juma left the appellant and contacted nata' with Dhanji of village Mandav Pal. In the intervening night of 13th and 14th May, 1974 when Smt. Juma was sleeping in the courtyard of the house of her husband Dhanji with her daughter Geeta (P.W.2) and son Hanja, the appellant is said to have gone there with a sword and caused injuries to Smt. Juma. On her raising a cry. the appellant took to heels. Amra (P.W.3) residing in the neighbourhood reached there and went to Police Station Ganeshpur and lodged an oral report with the Station House Officer, Ramanand Mishra (P.W.8). The Station House Officer registered a case under section 307 Indian Penal Code and proceeded with the investigation. Injuries of Smt. Juma were examined by Dr. Laxmansingh (P.W.7). Incharge Primary Health Centre Gamdi who noted three simple and one grevious injury on her person. After necessary investigation charge sheet against the appellant was filed in the court of Addl. Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Dungarpur, who after conducting the preliminary inquiry committed the appellant to the court of Sessions Judge, Udaipur to face his trial. The learned Sessions Judge, proceeded with the trial and placed reliance on the prosecution witnesses and held the appellant guilty for the offence under section 326 Indian Penal Code and passed the judgment of conviction and sentenced the appellant as stated earlier. 2. Learned counsel for the appellant while assailing the judgment of conviction has strongly contended that the prosecution case based on the solitary testimony of Smt. Juma who happens to be inimical with the appellant has been wrongly made the basis of conviction. 3. I carefully examined the evidence on record. Witness Amra (P.W.3) being the brother-in-law of Smt. Juma and his statement not inspiring confidence has been discarded by the learned Sessions Judge. 3. I carefully examined the evidence on record. Witness Amra (P.W.3) being the brother-in-law of Smt. Juma and his statement not inspiring confidence has been discarded by the learned Sessions Judge. So far as Geeta (P.W.2) is concerned, she is a child of ten years of age and has admitted that she could not identify the assailant and therefore, her statement also is of no help to the prosecution. The learned Sessions Judge has discussed in detail the testimony of Sint. Juma and has based the conviction on her statement as corroborated by the medical evidence. This is duly established by the statement of Dr. Laxmansingh that there were four injuries on the person of Smt. Juma at the time of her examination on 14th May, 1974. The pertinent question calling for answer is whether Smt. Juma was in a position to identify the assailant or in order to wreak vengeance she has falsely implicated her first husband with whom she had severed relations. 4. She has admitted that it was a dark night but at that time in the twilight of the stars she was able to identify Amra appellant as the assailant. It is worth consideration that she had lived with Amra as his wife for a period of about ten years. It is one thing to identify a stranger and another to identify the person so acquainted in the twilight of stars. This being the position, I am in perfect agreement with the learned Sessions Judge that it was not impossible for the lady to identify the appellant as the assailant. The argument of the learned counsel for the appellant is that Dhanji might not be carrying sweet relations with Smt. Juma who happened to be her 'natayat' wife. and so he might have caused injuries and not the appellant. No such suggestion has been made to Smt. Juma nor is there any evidence that she and Dhanji were not having cordial relations. Dhanji (P.W.4) was out of Station that day. The criminal cases cannot be looked into on conjunctures. I am also not convinced that this is a case in which Smt. Juma might have tried to falsely implicate Amra, her first husband on account of enmity with him. Dhanji (P.W.4) was out of Station that day. The criminal cases cannot be looked into on conjunctures. I am also not convinced that this is a case in which Smt. Juma might have tried to falsely implicate Amra, her first husband on account of enmity with him. The reason is evident that she had sustained injuries and there is prompt information lodged by Amra (P.W.3) on being informed about the incident by the victim and there is medical evidence corroborating the testimony of Smt. Juma. In this view of the matter the findings of guilt based on the solitary testimony of Smt. Juma who in my opinion is a witness of sterling worth cannot be said to be unjustified. 5. The next contention of Mr. Mehta, learned counsel for the appellant is that in no circumstance the ease under section 326 Indian Penal Code is made out because there is no specific evidence about any of the injuries being grevious. He has also emphaiszed that injury no. 3 designated to be grevious by Dr. Laxmansingh is not an the vital part of the body. Dr. Laxmansingh has categorically stated that injury no.3 which is an incised wound cutting of the muscles up to the level of the ulna process and vessels and nurvas supplying the muscles was grevious in nature. I am alive of the principle of law that in order to bring home the guilt for the offence under section 326 Indian Penal Code, prosecution should prove beyond any shadow of reasonable doubt that the injury stated by the Doctor to be grevious was really so. Dr. Laxmansingh (P.W.7) has classified injury no. 3 as grevious for the reason that vessels and nurves which supplied blood to the muscles were cut and there was bleeding at the time of his examining the injured. 6. Mr. Mehta has strongly emphasised that because there was no fracture of bone and the injured was treated for eighteen days only in the hospital as indoor-patient, there was no reason for designating this injury as grevious. He has also stressed that the Doctor could not have stated about it permanently impairing the movement of the wrist joint and small joints of fingers without seeing the injured subsequent to her treatment. 7. This is correct that the injured was not in the Court when the statement of the Doctor was recorded. He has also stressed that the Doctor could not have stated about it permanently impairing the movement of the wrist joint and small joints of fingers without seeing the injured subsequent to her treatment. 7. This is correct that the injured was not in the Court when the statement of the Doctor was recorded. But his statement is that he treated the injured for eighteen days in the hospital as she was the indoor patient. The condition of the injured after eighteen days could have given the occasion to the Doctor to opine about permanent disability resulting from the injury sustained by her. Injury No. 3 has been described by the Doctor-as under:- "Incised wound, margins clear, flexer muscles were cut off upto the level of the ulna process. Vessels and Nurves supplying the muscles were also cut. Muscles were attached to the hand by the flap of skin and their insertion at the level of ulna process was also cut. Wound had four corners and parallel margins. Blood was oozing from the muscles. The size was 6" long, 8" wide, and 1/2" deep. The depth was according to the flap cut off. The injury was at the flexer side of the left forearm. It started at 21/2" below the left elbow joint and went up to the level of the ulna process. Other side was 2" below the radial process. 8. It has been specifically deposed by the Doctor that when Smt. Juma was admitted in the hospital she was unconscious and was brought on a cot. With the flexer muscles being cut off along with vessels and nerves supplying the muscles also being cut off and the blood oozing from the wound and the injured being unconscious, the Doctor has rightly designated the injury as grevious. 9. In these circumstances, the conviction of the appellant for the offence under section 326 Indian Penal Code calls for no interference. 10. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that on account of certain mitigating circumstances a lenient view may be taken in the matter. The circumstances pointed out by him are that the appellants being under mental agony on account of his wife deserting him might have committed the crime out of frustration. The second circumstance pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant is that there is no injury on the vital part of the body of Smt. Juma. The circumstances pointed out by him are that the appellants being under mental agony on account of his wife deserting him might have committed the crime out of frustration. The second circumstance pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant is that there is no injury on the vital part of the body of Smt. Juma. The third circumstance pointed out by him is that the incident relates to the year 1974 and after a lapse of such a long period, it would be very harsh for the appellant to be sent behind the bars again. 11. I have considered all these circumstances but none of them is of the type which may warrant any lenient view in the matter. The factum of frustration on account of the wife deserting him would not entitle him to any clemency in this type of case i.e. intentionally causing grievous injury with a sharp edged weapon like sword. 12. Regarding the next contention suffice it to say that though no vital organ of the body of Smt. Juma has been cut, still the injury on the hand resulting in permanent impairing of the movement of the wrist joint and small joints of the fingers has disabled her and in such circumstances the lapse of time between the incident and the hearing of this appeal is not a circumstance to take a lenient view in the matter, especially so when the learned Sessions Judge has not passed a severe sentence for the offence under section 326 Indian Penal Code. 13. Consequently, the appeal having no merits stands dismissed. The appellant is on bail. His bail bonds are discharged. The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Doongarpur is directed to effect the arrest of the appellant and to commit him to custody to undergo the remaining sentence.Appeal dismissed. *******