S.S. Vyas, J.
1. This is a jail appeal by accused Gangaram against the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge (1) Jodhpur dated March 8, 1983 convicting the appellant under Sections 326 and 450, I.P.C. and sentencing him 2 1/2 years' rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 100/-, in default of payment to further undergo 15 days like imprisonment under each count. Substantive sentences were directed to run concurrently, while those in default of payment of fine, consecutively.,
2. Briefly, stated the prosecution case is that PW 9 Reshma the injured victim in the case is a dancing girl by profession. Earlier before 5 years of the occurrence, she carried on with her profession at Muradabad in U.P. The accused visited her there once or twice. Later on, nearly a year ago, she shifted to Jodhpur and was living in a room situate in the first floor. At about 11 p.m. on 30.10.81, the accused entered her room, offered some money and asked for her services. She declined the offer and refused to oblige him. The accused got infuriated, took out a razor from the pocket of his pant and struck a blow with its sharp side on the nose of Reshma (PW 9). She raised cries and the accused went down stairs. On hearing her cries, may persons collected and they caught hold of him. There was profuse bleeding from her wound and the clothes, she was wearing, got drenched with it. She was immediately taken to M.G. Hospital Somebody informed the police on telephone PW 15 Vishnudutt. A.S.I, on duty at Police out-post, Sojati gate rushed to the place of occurrence, where he found the accused detained by the public. He arrested him and proceeded to M. G. Hospital. There he found PW 9 Reshma, admitted in the Ward. He recorded her statement Ex.P 5. It was treated as the first information report and a case was registered under Sections 326 and 450, I.P.C. PW9 Reshma was examined by Medical Jurist PW 10 Dr. Dharmendra Sharma. He found the following injury.
1. Incised wound 9 cm x 0.9 cm. x muscle deep over the bridge of nose extending towards right side of the cheek below the eye tailing towards right side as shown in figure.
He issued injury report Ex.P 5. On 4.12.81, the doctor expressed his opinion that the aforesaid injury was grievous. The police inspected the site and seized the blood-stained clothes of the victim and the accused. In consequence of the information furnished by the accused whilst under police custody the razor with which he inflicted the injury, was recovered lying near a wall situate not far from the place of occurrence. On the completion of investigation, the police submitted a challan against the accused in the court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jodhpur, who committed the case for trial to the court of Sessions Judge, Jodhpur. The case came for trial before the learned Additional Sessions Judge (1), Jodhpur. He framed charges under Sections 326 and 450, IPC, against the accused. The accused pleaded not guilty to the charges and faced the trial. He claimed absolute innocence and averred that he has been falsely implicated. During trial, the prosecution examined 16 witnesses and filed some documents. In defense, no evidence was adduced. On the conclusion of trial, the learned Additional Sessions Judge held, both the charges duly proved against the accused. The accused was consequently convicted and sentenced as mentioned at the very out set. Aggrieved against his conviction and sentence, the accused has taken his appeal.
3. I have heard the learned Amicus Curiae and the Public Prosecutor, I have also gone through the case - file carefully.
4. In assailing the Conviction, the first contention raised by the learned Amicus Curiae is that there was no independent evidence td support the victim. It was argued that the victim was not in a position to identify her - assailant The court - below was in error in placing implicit faith on her testimony. She was not a reliable witness and at any rate, it would not be free from risk in convicting the accused on her sole testimony. In reply, the learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the accused was caught at the very place of occurrence by the public. He was preknown to the victim. As such, she was in a sound position to correctly identify her assailant.
5. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the contention raised on behalf of the accused & find it barren. It is true that the entire prosecution case rests on the sole testimony of the injured victim PW 9 Reshma. She disposed that when she was carrying on with her profession at Murada ad, the accused visited her once or twice and she offered her services to him. Later on, she shifted to Jodhpur and was living in a room situate on the first floor in Ghas Mandi. At about 11 am on the day of occurrence, when she was dressing herself, the accused came to her in the room, offered some money and asked for her services. She declined the offer and refused to oblige him. The accused got enraged, took out a razor from the pocket of his pant and struck a blow with its sharp side on her nose. It resulted in a cut wound. She raised cries & the accused went down stairs. The people standing in the street, caught hold of the accused. She was taken to the Hospital. She was subjected to lengthy and weary cross-examination, but nothing, could be elicited, which may make her testimony unworthy of belief or credit. It is difficult to imagine that she would falsely implicate the accused for no rhyme or reason. No previous enmity was there between her and the accused. The learned trial Judge accepted her testimony as true & I find no good and cogent reason to take a different view. Since, the accused was already known to tier, she was in a perfect sound position to identify him as her assailant. The first contention, thus, holds no ground.
6. It was next argued that the injury was wrongly held to be grievous in nature. I again find no force in the contention. The injury of the victim was examined by PW 19 Dr. Dharmendra Sharina, at about 12 20 p.m. on the very day of occurrence. He found the injury as stated above. P.W. 10 Dr. Dharmendra Sharma stated that the injury was grievous in nature because it resulted in the permanent disfiguration of her face. No reasons appear to discard the opinion of Dr. Dharmendra Sharma. Clause Sixthly of Section 320, IPC, designates permanent disfiguration of the face as grievous injury. The word 'disfigure' means to cause a person some external injury, which detracts from his or her personal appearance. Where a person causes a cut on the bridge of the nose of another with a sharp weapon like a razor, this amounts to a permanent disfiguration within the meaning of the aforesaid Clause. PW 10 Dr. Dharmendra Sharma was very positive in stating that dis-figuration of the victim's face caused by the injury, was of permanent nature. I, therefore, find no merits in the contention that the injury was wrongly taken to be grievous in nature.
7. The last submission of the learned Amicus Curiae pertains to sentence. It was argued that the accused was young man of 27-28 years of age. No previous conviction stands at his discredit. As such, a lenient view in the matter of sentence should be adopted. I am unable to accept the submission. The accused came with a razor. When the victim declined to offer her services to him, he got unnecessarily enraged. He took out the razor from his pocket & caused the injury with its sharp side on the victim's nose. This shows that there was a deliberated design on the part of the accused. Cases of nose cutting involves an act which imports deliberated design of a particularly brutal & cruel character. In such as caser severe & deterrent sentence is called for. The learned Addl. Sessions Judge imposed only, a sentence of 2 1/2 years R.I. This sentence in a case of nose cutting, cannot be said to be harsh and severe. No reduction in sentence is therefore, called for The accused does not deserve any leniency,
8. No other contention was raised before me.
9. From what has been disused above, I find no force in this appeal. The accused has been rightly convicted and sentenced.
10. In the result, the appeal of accused Gangaram is dismissed. He is serving out the sentence. He be accordingly informed of the result of