MATVA HASAM SULEMAN Vs. THE STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) xxx xxx xxx.

(2.) In view of the aforesaid evidence, it cannot be gainsaid that only the injuries Nos. 3 and 9 were caused by sharp cutting instrument while rest of the injuries were caused by hard and blunt substance. Now the next point to be considered is as to whether injuries No. 3 and 9 can be said to be grievous injury or not. In this connection, on having further perusal of the evidence of the medical officer, it is clear that he has admitted during cross-examination that injuries No. 3 and 9 were neither serious nor fracture. In view of the clear-cut admission of the doctor it would not detain me even for a moment to hold that the victim had not received any grievous injury by sharp cutting instrument. Therefore, the offence committed by the accused cannot fall within the purview of Section 326 of the IPC.

(3.) So far as injuries Nos. 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 10 are concerned, they are caused by hard and blunt substance. The injuries Nos. 4, 5, 6 and 8 are fractures. But they were caused with hard and blunt substance. Therefore, for inflicting those injuries, which are grievous hurt, the offence falls within the purview of Section 325 of the IPC and for causing injuries Nos. 3 and 9, the offence falls within the purview of Section 324 of IPC. Therefore, the accused have committed offence under Sections 324 and 325 of IPC and not under Section 326 of IPC.