JUDGMENT Manak Mohta, J. - The present criminal revision petition is against the judgment and order of sentence dated 31.1.2006 passed in Cri. Appeal No. 4/2006 under Sections 326, 324 and 341 I.P.C. filed by accused-petitioner by which learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 1, Chittorgarh maintained the judgment of conviction and confirmed the sentence awarded under Section 326 I.P.C. for five years R.I. and fine of Rs. 2,000/-, under Section 324 I.P.C. for one year R.I. and fine of Rs. 1,000/-, and under Section 341 I.P.C. one month S.I. vide order dated 4.1.2006 in Cri. Case No. 2/2006 (196/2004). It further reveals that the accused-petitioner filed this petition through jail that was previously treated as appeal but later on it is rectified and at the request of learned amicus curiae it was treated as revision.2. Brief facts of the case are like that from the perusal of the record, it reveals that on 1.3.2004 the complainant Smt. Reshma wife of the accused petitioner lodged a report at Police Station Kotwali, Chittorgarh, that her husband always used to beat and harassed her and due to that she started to live separately at Keero Ki Jhoparia. She further states that her husband after getting information of residing there on 1.3.2004 when she was going for job, her husband came behind and assaulted her with knife. During that, he caused injuries on her nose and on other parts, she was medically examined. On her report a case No. 117/2004 under Sections 326, 324, 341, 498-A I.P.C. was registered and after usual investigation, charge sheet was filed against accused-petitioner.3. Learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chittorgarh after concluding trial, on the basis of material available on record convicted the accused under the aforesaid sections vide judgment dated 4.1.2006, against the said judgment, accused petitioner filed an appeal before the Sessions Court, Pratapgarh from where the appeal was transferred for disposal to learned Additional District Judge, No. 1, Chittorgarh. Learned Sessions Judge, after hearing both the sides vide order dated 31.1.2006 maintained the order of conviction and sent him to jail for serving sentences against that the present revision petition is being heard.4. Notice of revision petition was given. Record of the case was called and arguments was heard.5. Learned Sessions Judge, after hearing both the sides vide order dated 31.1.2006 maintained the order of conviction and sent him to jail for serving sentences against that the present revision petition is being heard.4. Notice of revision petition was given. Record of the case was called and arguments was heard.5. During the course of arguments, learned amicus curiae submitted on behalf of accused petition that both the learned Courts committed error in holding the accused guilty under the above mentioned sections. He submitted that charge levelled against him are not found proved beyond reasonable doubts. Therefore, accused-petitioner was entitled for acquittal. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner also drew my attentions to statements of witnesses and other material on record and again submitted that he may be acquitted and revision may be allowed. Learned Public Prosecutor on the other hand refuted the contention and submitted that before trial Court number of witnesses have been produced to prove the charges levelled against accused-petitioner. It was submitted that accused petitioner is husband of complainant. She has given a detail of incident in her statement. Her statement is further supported and corroborated by other witnesses. On the basis of these material, accused has rightly been held guilty by the trial Court as well by Appellate Court.6. Learned Public Prosecutor further urged that under the limited scope of revision, no interference is needed, thus revision petition is dismissed.7. I have considered the rival submissions and perused the impugned judgment/order and also gone through the record of the case. From the perusal of the record, it reveals during trial, on behalf of prosecution complainant herself has appeared as PW-9 Reshma. In her statement, she has supported allegations. She has stated that her husband used to beat her. She has further stated on the day of occurrence, she sustained injuries which were caused by her husband accused-petitioner. She has stated that injuries were caused by her husband, injuries are corroborated by injury report. During trial from the side of prosecution witnesses PW-4 her son Ramesh has also appeared. He has also stated that accused-petitioner is his father, who caused injury to her mother. PW,1 Dr. Kamal Bhargava has stated that on 1.3.2004 he examined Smt. Reshma wife of Madhu and found injuries on her body. During trial from the side of prosecution witnesses PW-4 her son Ramesh has also appeared. He has also stated that accused-petitioner is his father, who caused injury to her mother. PW,1 Dr. Kamal Bhargava has stated that on 1.3.2004 he examined Smt. Reshma wife of Madhu and found injuries on her body. From the perusal of the evidence along with material submitted by the police, the trial Court has rightly held him guilty in aforesaid sections that has been further maintained by the Appellate Court. There is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order, considering the scope of the revision I did not find any requirement to interfere in impugned judgment and order. Thus, revision petition is hereby dismissed. Impugned orders are maintained. Revision dismissed. *******