Anil L. Pansare JUDGMENT
Anil L. Pansare, J.
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith.
2. The applicant-original accused has questioned the legality, correctness and propriety of the judgment and order dated 4-1-2023 passed by the Sessions Court, Nagpur in Criminal Appeal No. 281/2017. Learned Sessions Court has allowed the appeal partly. Resultantly, the order dated 27-9-2017 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Mouda, District Nagpur in Summary Criminal Case No. 295/2013 convicting the applicant under Section 506 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) has been set aside, however, the order convicting the applicant for the offences punishable under Sections 323 and 294 of the IPC has been upheld. Learned Magistrate has imposed the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for three months each for both the offences as also to pay fine of Rs. 500/-each and in default to suffer simple imprisonment for fifteen days.
3. Thus, there is a concurrent finding of the Courts below as regards conviction of the applicant for the offences punishable under Sections 323 and 294 of the IPC.
4. The facts necessary to decide the revision are as under :
(i) The informant Shalini Gedam was Head Mistress of Pranag High School, Anjangaon where the applicant was working as Peon. Since the applicant had not done the work of cleaning properly, the informant had given him notice resulting into deduction in his salary. On 25-9-2013 at about 10.45 a.m., the informant had assigned the work to two peons and instructed the applicant to fetch water in the bucket from the hand-pump and to clean bathroom. The applicant abused her by saying 
(you mother fucker, you sleep with director, you are a prostitute, the director is an old fellow, I am young, come with me). The applicant has then assaulted the informant by iron bucket and also threatened her of killing on the same day. Accordingly, the Head Mistress lodged report with Mouda Police Station which came to be registered as Crime No. 3049/2013 for the offences punishable under Sections 294, 323 and 506 of the IPC.
(ii) To bring home the guilt of the applicant, the prosecution has examined five witnesses, namely, P.W. 1 Sunil Dongre, an employee of the school. He is a panch witness and author of spot panchanama. P.W. 2 Shalini Gedam, is an informant. P.W. 3 Sau Kshama Dongre, who was working as helper in the school and is an eye witness. P.W. 4 Dr. Asim Inamdar, who has examined the informant and issued MLC. P.W. 5 Arun Wankhede is the Investigating Officer.
5. The first appellate Court noted that the evidence of first three witnesses clearly indicates that P.W. 2 Head Mistress had assigned the work of bathroom cleaning to the applicant, who instead of performing his duty, assaulted the Head Mistress causing injuries on her left knee, thigh, right shoulder and left hand. The incident has been reported immediately. P.W. 4 Doctor has examined the Head Mistress on the same day and found multiple injuries on her body. The Head Mistress was having contusion on right scapular region, blunt trauma, injury on the left shoulder and on left thigh above left knee. She was having abrasion on left knee as also swelling and abrasion over the left forearm. The injury certificate is at Exhibit 16 and referral........