KAMLA BAI Vs. NARESH AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Revisionist/complainant is aggrieved by order dated 1.5.2015, whereby the court below has exonerated the accused from the charge under Section 326/34 of Indian Penal Code (IPC).

(2.) Shri R.P.Rathi, learned counsel for the revisionist, contends that the revisionist's daughter Lata and fatherin-law Shankar were keeping watch on her agricultural field, which was cultivated by tractor. The accused attacked them with kicks and fists by hitting the scrotum of Shankar (father-in-law), resulting in injury and severe pain. The FIR was registered for the offences under Sections 323, 504, 506-B and 34 IPC. The police, in turn, submitted the charge sheet. The Sessions Court, Shivpuri added the offence under Section 326 IPC. The offence under section 326 was subsequently deleted by order dated 1.5.2015, which is called in question in the present petition.

(3.) The singular contention of Shri Rathi is that even if it is a blow by kick and fist or by any other body part, which resulted into grievous hurt, Section 326 IPC is attracted. By taking this Court to Section 326 IPC, it is contended that the word "instrument" is wide enough to include kick, fist or blow by any other body part. The court must see the gravity of injury. He relied on (H Mansel Pleydell of Simla vs. Emperor, 1926 AIR(Lah) 313), to contend that if somebody knowingly kicks a delicate and vulnerable part of human body, such blow may cause death. He also relied on (Chaurasi Manjhi and another vs. State of Bihar, 1970 AIR(Pat) 322) to contend that in the said case, the appellant Jagdish Manjhi rode on the chest of PW1 and bit his lower lip with teeth, causing bleeding injury. The High Court considered the meaning of the word "instrument" and "tooth" as per Webster's Third New International Dictionary and opined that for simple injury caused by tooth bite, the offender will be guilty under section 324 of Penal Code.