S.S. Vyas, J.
1. This is a jail appeal by the accused Gangaram against the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge, No. I, Jodhpur dated March 8, 1983 convicting him under Sections 326 and 450, IPC and sentencing him to 2 1/2 years' R.I. with a fine of Rs. 100/-, in default of payment of fine to undergo further RI for 15 days, 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 her profession at Muradabad in U.P. The accused visited her there one or twice. Later on, nearly an year ago, she; shifted to Jodhpur and was living in a room situate at first floor. At about 11 p.m. on 30.10.81, the accused came to her room offered some money and asked for her services. She declined the offer and refused to oblige him. The accused caught infuriated, took out his razor from the popket of the pant and struck a blow with its sharp side on the nose of Reshmal PW. 9. She raised cries and the accused went down stairs. On hearing her cries, many persons collected and they caught hold of them. There was profuse bleeding from her wound and the clothes which she was wearing got drenched with blood. She was immediately taken to M.G. Hospital. Someboly informed the police on telephone. PW. 15 Vishnudutt, as on duty at Police Out-Post, Sojatigate rusbed to the place of occurrence, where he found the accused detained by the public. He arrested him and procseded to M.G. Hospital There he found PW 9 Reshma admitted in the Ward. He recorded her statement Ex. P/6. It was treated as the first informauon report and a case was registered under Section 326 and 450, IPC. PW. 9 Reshma was examined by PW. 10 Dr. Dharmendra Sharma, Medical Jurist. He found the following injury:
1. Incised wound 9 cm. x 0.9 cm. x muscle deep over the bridge of rose extending towards right side of the cheek below the eye tailing towards right side as shown in figure.
He issued the injury report Ex. P/7. On 1.12.81, 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 the 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 completion of the investigation, the police submitted a Challan against the accused in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jodhpur, who committed the case for trial to the court of Sessions, Jodhpur. The case came for trial before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, No. 1, Jodhpur. He framed charges under Sections 326 and 450, IPC against the accused. The accused pleaded not guilty to the charge and faced the trial. He claimed absolutely innocence & averred that he has been falsely implicated. During the trial, the prosecution examined 16 witnesses and filed some documents. In defence, no evidence was adduced. On the conclusion of the trial, the learned Additional Sessions Judge held that both the charges were duly proved against the accused. The accused was consequently convicted and sentenced as mentioned at the very out set. Aggrieved against his conviction & sentence, the accused has taken this appeal.
3. I have heard Mr. Harish Mathur, learned Amicus Curiae and the Public Prosecutor for the State. 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 to 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 the implicit faith on her testimony. She was not a reliable witness and at any rate, it would not be free from the risk in convicting the accused on her sole testimony. In reply, the learned Public Prosecutor stated that the accused was caught at the very place of occurrence by the public. She was pre-known to the victim. As such, she was in a sound position to correctly identify her assailant. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the contention and find it barren. It is true that the entire prosecution case rests on the sole testimony of the injured victim PW. 9 Reshma. She deposed that when she was carrying the profession at Muradabad, the accused visited there one or twice and she offered his services to him. Later on, she shifted to Jodhpur and was living in a room situate on the first floor in the Ghas Mandi, Jodhpur At about 11 a.m on the day of occurrence, when she was dressing herself, the accused cane, 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 and 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 from her, which may make her testimony unworthy of belief or credence. 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 Additional Sessions Judge accepted her testimony as true and I find no good and cogent reason to take a different view. Since the accused was already known to her, she was in a perfect sound position to identify him as her assailant. The first contention, thus, holds no ground.
5. 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 P.W.10 Dr. Dharmendra Sharma. 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 by some external injury. Where a person cause a cut on the bridge of the nose by another sharp edged weapon like razor, this amounts to a permanent disfiguration within the meaning of the aforesaid Clause. P.W. 10 Dr. Dharmendra Sharma was positive in stating that disfiguration 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.
6. The last submission of the learned Amicus Curiae pertains to sentence. It was argued that the accused was a 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 her pocket and caused the injury with its sharp side on the victim's face. This shows that there was a deliberate design on the part of the accused. Cases of nose cutting involves an act, which imports deliberate design of a particularly brutal and cruel character, in such a case, sever; and deterrent sentence is called for. The learned Additional Sessions Judge imposed only a sentence of 2 1/2 years RI. This sentence in case of nose cutting can not be said to be harsh and severe. No reduction in sentence is, therefore, called for. The accused does not deserve any leniency.
7. No other contention was raised before me.
8. From what has been discussed above, I find no force in this appeal. The accused has been rightly convicted and sentenced.
9. In the result, the appeal of accused Gangaram is dismissed. He is serving out the sentence. He be informed accordingly the result of the appeal.