ROOPA Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Sessions Judge, Bikaner, by his order dated 16th June, 1965, convicted the appellants Roopa and Gokul of an offence under Section 326. Indian Penal Code. Gokul was sentenced to three years rigorous imprisonment while Roopa was sentenced to 11/2 years rigorous imprisonment. It may be mentioned at this stage that during the course of the trial the injured Motaram and Moolaram and the accused had submitted an application praying for permission to compound the offence. The learned Sessions Judge holding an offence under Section 326, Indian Penal Code, proved, could not and did not permit the parties to compound the offence.

(2.) IN this appeal, the learned counsel for the appellants raised no controversy on the facts. On the other hand, he conceded that on the evidence on record the infliction of injuries by the appellants to Moolaram and Motaram stands proved. His only submission is that the injuries suffered by Moolaram and Motaram have not been proved to be grievous in a satisfactory manner and that consequently the appellants could be held liable only for an offence under Section 324, Indian Penal Code. It was further submitted that an offence under Section 324, Indian Penal Code, being compoundable with the permission of the Court, this Court may be pleased to grant permission for compromise and to acquit the accused-appellants in terms of the compromise.

(3.) THE only question, therefore, calling for determination in this appeal is whether the injuries inflicted by the appellants are of a grievous nature or not. The appellant Roopa is held responsible for injuries on the person of Moolaram. The injuries found on the person of Moolaram have been described by the Doctor Navab Ali P. W. 7 as follows: 1. Incised wound 1" x 1/2" with lateral and pointed and narrow and medial end broader. 2. Incised wound 1/8" x 1/8" communicating injury No. 1. In the opinion of the Doctor, the injuries were grievous and were caused by a sharp edged weapon.