VISHNU S. Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner/de facto complaint is aggrieved by the final report filed by the investigating officer for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 294(b) and 323 r/w Section 34 of IPC against the accused. The petitioner states that one of his tooth was loosened because of the assault, and therefore, it is a grievous injury which attracts the offence punishable under Section 325 of IPC. This point was raised before the trial court and the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-III, Kollam (Temporary) holding charge of Grama Nyayalaya, Perinad vide Anexure 7 order, disregarded the submissions made by the de facto complainant and held that there is no grievous hurt and loosening of tooth is not a grievous injury as defined under Section 320 of IPC, so as to attract an offence under Section 325 of IPC. Therefore, offences are made out only under Sections 341, 294(b), 323 r/w Section 34 of IPC.

(2.) The petitioner is aggrieved and relies on certain decisions of the Karnataka High Court at Bangalore at Annexure 8, wherein it is pointed out that the loosening of tooth also would attract the offence of grievous injury under Section 320 of IPC.

(3.) A reading of the judgment at paragraph 14 would indicate that loosened tooth was later extracted and the dentist was also examined to prove that fact, that is why the court found the accused therein is guilty under Section 325 of IPC. The situation in this particular case is not similar, therefore the decision relied upon by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner at Annexure 8 is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of this case.