JUDGMENT 1. - This is a revision by petitioner Sardara who was convicted by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Doongarpur for offences under Secs. 326, 342 and 323 I.RC. and his conviction has been confirmed by learned Sessions Judge, Doongarpur. Sentences passed against him are as follows- For offence under Sec. 326 I.P.C. 3 years' rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 500/- and in default to undergo one month's imprisonment. For offence under Sec. 323 I.P.C. Six Months' imprisonment. For offence under Sec. 342 I.P.C. Six months' imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 200/- and in default to undergo 15 days imprisonment. 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Public Prosecutor at length and have gone through the record. 3. Briefly stated, facts of the case of that on 7.12.1996 Punjilal submitted a report to Dy. S.P. Doongarpur that on 4.12.1996 at about 12 PM. Poona Ram came to his house in order to take his son Krishna aged 18 years. Punjilal and his wife were not present as they had gone to their field to water it. They saw Poona taking away their son Krishna. When it was inquired, they told that they would come back after some time as they were going to market. It was further alleged that Poona took Krishna to his home town and at about 9.00 or 10.00 served dinner and asked him to sleep there. It was further alleged that a conspiracy was hatched according to which Suraj was brought to the house of Krishna. In the meantime Sardara armed with a lathi came to the house of Poona. He woke up Krishna and then gave beatings to him. Sardara was accompanied by his wife. He then took Krishna to his house and then at his house Sardara and his wife tried Krishna and thereafter Sardara cut the nose of Krishna with knife. Krishna was lying unconscious and when information reached to his father Punjilal he along with certain other persons reached there. Punjilal assured payment of Rs. 10.051/- in order to get his son Krishna released. Krishna then was taken to hospital at Doongarpur but the doctors refused to admit him. They advised to take Krishna to Ahmedabad. Case was registered under various sections of Indian Penal Code against some persons who were tried. Punjilal assured payment of Rs. 10.051/- in order to get his son Krishna released. Krishna then was taken to hospital at Doongarpur but the doctors refused to admit him. They advised to take Krishna to Ahmedabad. Case was registered under various sections of Indian Penal Code against some persons who were tried. But learned Magistrate while acquitting Poona and Smt. Sharda convicted the accused petitioner as stated above. He preferred the appeal but was unsuccessful. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there were discrepancies in the evidence and the Trial Court as well as Appellate Court committed error in appreciating and re-appreciating the evidence. He submitted that there was extra ordinary delay in lodging the report and that identification of the accused petitioner was doubtful. He also submitted that there were discrepancies in the evidence about use of weapon. He, therefore, submitted that the petitioner deserves acquittal. In the alternative he submitted that sentence is excessive in the facts and circumstances of the case and in case the Court comes to the conclusion that petitioner has committed offences, lenient view may be taken.On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor citing State of Kerala v. Puttumana lath Jathavedan Namboodir etc., JT 1999(1) SC 456 , submitted that the revisional powers of the High Court cannot be equated with the power of an Appellate Court nor can it be treated even as a second appellate jurisdiction. It has been further held in the said citation that ordinarily, therefore, it would not be appropriate for the High Court to re-appreciate the evidence and come to its own finding on the same when the evidence has already been appreciated by the Magistrate as well as Sessions Judge in appeal unless any glaring feature is brought to the notice of the High Court which would otherwise tantamount to gross miscarriage of justice. Learned Public Prosecutor, therefore, submitted that there is no force in the revision petition as evidence once appreciated by learned Trial Court and re-appreciated by the Appellate Court cannot be further re-appreciated by this Court. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that whatever he has argued are the glaring features of this case. 6. So far as delay is concerned, I find that there is sufficient explanation. Ex.D/2 first information report was submitted directly to the Dy.S.P by Punjilal who is the father of the injured. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that whatever he has argued are the glaring features of this case. 6. So far as delay is concerned, I find that there is sufficient explanation. Ex.D/2 first information report was submitted directly to the Dy.S.P by Punjilal who is the father of the injured. The first information report mentions that when Krishna was taken to hospital the doctors refused to admit and advised that he may be taken to Ahmedabad. He was taken to Ahmedabad where the doctors asked that chopped off pieces of the nose be brought immediately so that the same may be transplanted. He came back and then reported the matter to the police. Punjilal has been examined on behalf of the prosecution as RW. 6. He has corroborated the first information report. In the facts and circumstances when it was so that he had to take his son to Ahmedabad injured condition whose treatment was more important and he was ultimately referred to Ahmedabad and was taken there, the delay in properly explained. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner then submitted that identification of the accused was doubtful. But this argument does not help the petitioner at all. The first information report itself mentions that when the petitioner was taking away the injured, the father of the injured had seen Panna and Krishna together. He had identified Panna who was taking his son Krishna. The first information report does mention the name of petitioner but it is based on the story told by his son Krishna. Krishna RW. 3 stated that he and Panna took dinner together and then both of them slept. In the night Sardara came and inquired as to who was in the house of Panna. Panna told him that it was Krishna who was his guest. Then accused petitioner Sardara brought a lathi and rope fell down Krishna from the cot, tied him, dragged him and then opened his pant and gave beatings. He demanded a sum of Rs. 7,000/- and then the petitioner threatened to kill him. Thereafter he was asked to put his signatures on piece of paper. He cut the nose of the petitioner. It has come on record that Poona was an uncle of Krishna and from his house the petitioner took injured. A 'chhuri' was used to cut the nose of Krishna which is well proved from his evidence. Thereafter he was asked to put his signatures on piece of paper. He cut the nose of the petitioner. It has come on record that Poona was an uncle of Krishna and from his house the petitioner took injured. A 'chhuri' was used to cut the nose of Krishna which is well proved from his evidence. 8. It was RW. 7 Dr. Rakesh Verma who examined injured Krishna on 5.12.1996 and stated that he had following injuries- 1. Lower ⅔rd of nose, amputated margin regular, 11/2"Xl"Xfull thickness eleed on touch. 2. Abrasion on lat surface of right elbow 3/4" X⅓" in size. 3. Red bruise on forth surface of upper ⅓rd of right forearm, 2"X3/4" in size. 4. Red bruise on lat surface of lower ⅓rd of right thigh 3"X1/2" (lathi). 5. Two red bruises on ant surface of upper 1/2 of right leg, 11/2"X1/2M and 2"X 1/2" (lathi). 6. Red bruise on right left area 2"X2" size. 7. Diffuse swelling and tindemen present on doirsum of right foot. 8. Red bruise on left knee 2"X 1/2" in size (lathi). 9. Red bruise on ant lat surface of upper ⅓rd of left leg, 21/2"x21/2". 10. Red bruise on left calf area with knee, 8"X3" in size. 11. Diffuse swelling and tindemen present in dorsum of left foot. 12. Red bruise on left shoulder 11/4"X 11/4" in size. 13. Two red bruises on linubon area, 71/2"X3/4" and 5"X1" in size (lathi). 14. Red bruise on left glutiai area, 3"X 1/2" in size (lathi). 9. These injuries are mentioned in Ex.P/4. According to him injury No. 1 was caused by sharp weapon. He was asked that the same could be caused by stone but he refused. This is a cut on the nose and its piece which was chopped off was recovered from the house of the petitioner, as stated by RW. 10 Kantilal. X-Ray examination of the nose was performed on 5.12.1996 by which it was proved that the nose of the injured was cut. Thus, there is definite evidence that the nose of Krishna was cut by a sharp weapon. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner then submitted that there was discrepancy about the weapon. RW. 3 Krishna stated that his nose was cut by a 'chhuri. Learned counsel submitted that the police recovered a knife at the instance of the accused petitioner. RW. Thus, there is definite evidence that the nose of Krishna was cut by a sharp weapon. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner then submitted that there was discrepancy about the weapon. RW. 3 Krishna stated that his nose was cut by a 'chhuri. Learned counsel submitted that the police recovered a knife at the instance of the accused petitioner. RW. 10 Kantilal stated that a knife Art. II was recovered at the instance of the accused from his residence. RW. 13 Kishore Singh who was the Investigating Officer stated that a knife was recovered at the instance of the accused petitioner. It hardly matters that Krishna calls it a 'chhuri' while Investigating Officer and the attesting witness of the memo of recovery of weapon of offence say that it was knife. Krishna, as soon as his nose was cut, became unconscious and could have remembered only this much that his nose was cut by a cutting weapon. Whether cutting weapon was 'chhuri' of a 'knife' are matters of detail. Ex.P/5 is the recovery memo which does not mention that the weapon had any blood stains, therefore, it is not much material as to what type of cutting weapon was. Actually in this area of Rajasthan Chhuri & Knife are one and the same. It is definite that it was a sharp edged weapon which chopped off the nose of injured Krishna. Section 326 I.RC. postulate an instrument for shooting, stabbling, or cutting or any instrument which is likely to cause death. It is well proved that the nose of Krishna was chopped off by a cutting weapon which was a Chhuri (Knife). 11. In the last, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that theory of defence was that Krishna had an illicit relations with some lady and had gone in connection thereof and the lady was a relation of the accused petitioner. The defence theory was put to witness Krishna that he had illicit relations with daughter of Sardara a named Suraj but there is no evidence that Krishna had gone on his own accord to the house of petitioner Sardara. Instead Krishna RW. 3 has stated that the petitioner took him any from the house of Poona. The defence theory was put to witness Krishna that he had illicit relations with daughter of Sardara a named Suraj but there is no evidence that Krishna had gone on his own accord to the house of petitioner Sardara. Instead Krishna RW. 3 has stated that the petitioner took him any from the house of Poona. P.W. 5 Roopal, who is son of Punjilal, has stated that Krishna was taken away to the house of Sardara from the house of his father where he was detained and tied with a rope. He did go to the house of Sardara who demanded some money and he found that injured Krishna's nose was cut. The theory of this illicit relationship 'with daughter of Sardara does not appear to be correct as this witness P.W. 5 Rooplal was suggested that Sardara told that Krishna had committed rape with his daughter, therefore, Krishna was tied down by rope. The theory of defence does not appear to the correct because no first information report about rape was lodged and it appears that it is an after thought theory. No defence witness has been examined on behalf of the accused petitioner to prove the defence theory. 12. In view of above discussion I do not find that these are the glaring features which might have caused gross injustice in this case and, therefore, the petitioner may deserve acquittal. Prosecution has proved by positive evidence the offences against the petitioner. 13. Learned counsel for the petitioner cited AIR 1960 SC 67 , Vishwanath v. The State of Uttar Pradesh , and submitted that the defence of the petitioner should be accepted as it is admitted by seme witnesses that there was allegation that the accused petitioner had gone to commit rape to the daughter of the Sardara. In this citation the appellant's sister was being abducted from her father's house by her husband, and there was an assault on her and she was being compelled by force to go away from her father's place. It was held that the appellant had the right of private defence of the body of his sister against an assault with the intention of abducting her by force and that right extended to the causing of death. It was held that the appellant had the right of private defence of the body of his sister against an assault with the intention of abducting her by force and that right extended to the causing of death. This ruling is not applicable to the facts of the case because there is nothing on record that the accused was caught red handed when he was committing sexual intercourse with the daughter of the petitioner. Rathor what has been found proved by the two Courts below is that the petitioner went to the house of Poona and saw the injured there and then he brought a lathi and rope and then caught the injured and dragged him to his house. If any offence of rape was committed, the matter should have been reported to the police but it was not done. So the theory of defence has rightly been rejected by the Courts being. 14. So far as sentence is concerned, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that a lenient view may be taken. But in the facts and circumstances when the petitioner deliberately committed such an offence which has permanently disfigured Krishna, I am not inclined to take a lenient view in the matter. 15. In view of of above discussion, the revision petition has no force and it is hereby-dismissed.Revision petition dismissed. *******