ABDUL REZAK Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition is directed against the judgment dt. 10-7-89 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Dhubri, dismissing Crl. Appeal No. 6 (3)/88 preferred by the petitioner Abdul Razak against the judgment dt. 12-8-88 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dhubri in GR Case No. 659/85 convicting the petitioner under sec. 326 IPC and sentencing him to undergo R.I. for 3 months and to pay a fine of Rs. 400/- and in default to suffer further imprisonment for 15 days.

(2.) The case in short is that the petitioner caused grievous hurt to Jahangir Islam with a spade on 2-6-85 an 7.30 AM in the morning. Mr. D.C. Mahanta, learned counsel for the petitioner took me through the impugned judgments as well as the evidence on record. He fairly submis that the evidence as regards the assault on the victim by the petitioner is sufficient and therefore on this point he has no submission. However, he submits that a bare perusal of the medical evidence will show that the injured did not suffer any such grievous injury within the meaning of Section 326 IPC.

(3.) PW-8 is the medical officer, who gave medical treatment to the injured. From his evidence, it appears that none of the injuries suffered by the injured, except injury No. 1 was caused by sharp weapon. He further specifically stated that except injury No. 1, rest of the injuries were caused by blunt weapon. He further stated that except injury No. 2, all the injuries which were inflicted upon the injured were of simple in nature. Therefore, injury No. 2 which was clearly caused by blunt weapon and grievous in nature, because fracture was detected, the case at best comes under sec. 325 IPC. Mr. Mahanta, further submits that no X-ray report and X-ray/plate were produced before the learned trial court to prove that the injured had suffered any fracture. And for non production off such X-ray report plate, it cannot be said definitely as to whether the injured suffered any fracture as alleged. Mr. Mahanta further submits that it cannot now be a case under sec. 326 IPC. He therefore contends that the injury No. 2 may at best be held to be simple hurt caused by blunt weapon. He further submits that as the injury caused by sharp weapon was of simple nature, according ot PW- 8 for the said injury No.l, petitioner may be held responsible at the most under sec. 324 IPC.