BIDHAN BISOI Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision is preferred against the judgement dated 27-10-1984 passed by the Second Additional Sessions Judge, Berhampur, in Criminal Appeal No. 66 of 1983 (8/83-G) confirming the order of the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Bhanjanagar, in G. R. Case No. 217 of 1987, convicting the petitioner under Section 323, I.P.C. and sentencing him thereunder to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a further period of one year, with a direction that out of the fine amount, if realised, an amount of Rs. 250/- be paid to P.W. 3 Balakrishna Bisoi.

(2.) On a proper consideration of the evidence of P.Ws. 1 to 4 and the evidence of the doctor (P.W. 5), both the Courts below have come to a finding that the petitioner had voluntarily caused grievous hurt to Balakrishna Bisoi (P.W. 3) by giving a blow on his neck with a Kati and thereby rendered himself liable under Section 326, I.P.C.

(3.) At the outset the learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the prosecution has not satisfactorily proved that the injury caused on the person of P.W. 3 was grievous in nature and therefore, the petitioner is liable under Section 324, I.P.C. and not under Section 326, I.P.C. That on account of the blow given by the petitioner with a Kati P.W. 3 sustained an incised wound on his neck, is not challenged at the time of hearing. Dr. Sahu (P.W. 5) deposed that on 7-6-1977, at about 9.30 P.M., he examined Balakrishna Bisoi (P.W. 3) and found an incised wound on the back of his neck and the age of the injury was within about half an hour from the time of his examination. So it is evident that the injured got himself examined by the doctor soon after the occurrence. The doctor opined that the injury noticed by him on the neck of P.W. 3 was grievous in nature. He proves the medical certificate Ext. 2 given by him which also mentions that the injury sustained by P.W. 3 was grievous in nature. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the doctor had not explained how the injury was grievous in nature. But then there is absolutely no cross-examination of the doctor regarding his opinion that the injury in question was grievous in nature. So the evidence of the doctor that the injury was grievous in nature goes unchallenged. In any event the medical evidence can be safely relied on at least for coming to a finding that there was an incised wound on the neck of P.W. 3 caused by the Kati blow given by the petitioner. The incised wound on the beck of P.W. 3 inflicted with a sharp-edged weapon like a Kati must be considered serious enough so as to ''endanger the life" of P.W. 3, within the meaning of Clause 8 of Section 320, I.P.C. and, therefore, the same must be held to be a grievous injury. So the conviction under Section 326, I.P.C. is justified.