CHAMRU SAH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The revision application in respect of petitioner No. 1 was dismissed at the time of admission itself vide order dated 8-5-81. The revision application of this petitioner was admitted mainly on following two Points : (a) whether injury No. 1 on Rama Shankar Sah was found to be grievous, (b) Secondly, if the injury is simple which offence he has committed.

(2.) After going through the entire evidence and the judgments of both the courts below, I find that there is consistent evidence that this petitioner Rama Shankar Sah assaulted the Informant on the head with Farsa. Nothing has been shown to me to disbelieve this portion of the prosecution evidence. There is also concurrent findings on this point of both the courts below. Therefore, it is well proved that this petitionor assaulted the Informant with Farsa on his bead.

(3.) Now question arises as to what offence he has committed. P.W. 7 is the doctor, who had examined P.W. 6 on 15-11- 76 and found following injuries on his person :- 1. Incised wound 3 1/4"x "X whole scalp deep reaching up to the superficial of the bone, on the right side of the scalp, when flap had been raised. (ii) Abrasion " X " X1/6" on his outer aspect of forehead, (iii) Abrasion 1/4"x " on the dorsom of the right hand, (iv) Swelling with bruise 5 X 2" X skin deep on left arm above elbow, (v) Lacerated wound i"xl" on the left thumb (vi) Swelling with pink is bruise 7 " X1" X skin deep on the front of left thigh. (vii) Swelling 4"X I" skin deep on the lower part of left thigh, (viii) Swelling 3" x 1" X skin deep on the right side of back, (ix) Swelling 4"x X skin deep on his right arm in outer aspect. The injury Nos. 1, 2 and 3 were caused by some sharp cutting weapon, such as Farsa and Garasa, and the rest were caused by Lathi. P. W. 7 has stated that injury No. 1 was found to be grievous, but I think that this opinion of the doctor is not consistent with the definition of grievous wound as defined under Section 320 of the Indian Penal Code.