rest of the witnesses turned hostile to the prosecution. It is pointed out that it can be found from the evidence of PW9, the doctor who proved Ext.P7, wound certificate the only major injury is the loss of one tooth. The other injuries are only lacerated wounds. As per the prosecution allegations, he has been beaten with the iron pipe and beaten repeatedly with the nunjak. As pointed out by the counsel for the revision petitioner the injuries would have been more serious had it been the case of beating with an iron pipe and nunjak. There is no other injuries over the lip or face which would have resulted had he been beaten with the nunjak on the face and as a result of which he lost one tooth. In the circumstances, it appears that the prosecution version as such cannot be said to have been established beyond reasonable doubt. In the circumstances, it appears that the loss of tooth as such cannot be the result of blow on the face with a weapon like nunjak as alleged. I find that the conviction for the offence under section 326 IPC, in view of the above evidence, cannot be
