The distinction between hurt and grievous hurt under Sections 319 and 320 of IPC, and the interpretation of "severe bodily pain" as an ingredient of grievous hurt under Section 320(8) of IPC.

B. K. SOMASEKHARA, J.

( 1 ) THE appellant who is the sole accused in S. C. No. 147/91 was convicted and sentenced by the learned Sessions Judge, East Godavari at Rajahmundry by the orders dated 21-9-1992 for an offence punishable under Section 304, Part II of the indian Penal Code, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a term of six years and that is challenged.

( 2 ) WITH a not guilty plea for a charge under Section 302 of the Indian Penal code for intentionally causing die death of his relative Domadula Sayi Babu by beating him with hands and by kicking on his stomach in the house of the deceased at 3 p. m. on 7-8-1990 for not obliging him for toddy, the accused was tried, but convicted for the offence as stated above.

( 3 ) P. WS. 1 and 2 the neighbours saw the incident or atleast saw the accused and deceased immediately thereafter to know the incidentfrom Gangamma the kept mistress of the deceased. The deceased tried for a panchayat through sarpanch P. W3 who sent P. W. 4 the village servant to get the accused, in vain. So as advised by P. W. 3 the deceased placed Ex. P-6 report before P. W. ll the head Constable of Devipatnam Police Station on 9-8-90 at 5 p. m. which followed the FIR Ex. P-7 to the jurisdictional Magistrate. The deceased was examined in Devipatnam hospital by the Doctor P. W. 9 whose testimony and ex. P-2 the postmortem certificate disclose a blunt injury on the abdomen with a jejunal tear with extensive peritonitis in the intestines and was operated on 10-8-90 but died on 12-8-90 due to septic shock and peritonitis. On his intimation of the death of the deceased, P. W. 12 the Sub-Inspector of Police, Devipatnam police Station altered the offence to Section 302 of IPC and issued another FIR as per Ex. P-8, Ex. P-1 is the inquest report/proceedings. The dead body was subjected to postmortem examination through the Doctor P. W. 7 and Ex. P-2 is the postmortem certificate. The dying declaration recorded by the Doctor is as per Ex. 6 and another dying declaration recorded by the II Addl. Judicial magistrate of 1st Class P. W. 10 is as per Ex. P-5. On completing the investigation, p. W. 12 filed the charge sheet into Court.

( 4 ) THE defence was one of total denial.

( 5 ) THE learned Advocate for the appellant is unable to persuade this Court to disbelieve the case of the prosecution. The learned Public Prosecutor is totally justified in supporting the findings of the learned Sessions Judge believing the case of the prosecution. Little contradictions here and there pointed out in the evidence of the prosecution are npt sufficient to hold contrary to what is projected as the substratum of the incident leading to the death of the deceased. The delay in filing the FIR is convincingly explained. The deceased being a relative of the accused tried to espouse his grievance by a panchayat through the sarpanch in vain. That is why he had to postopone reporting of the matter to the police as per Ex. P-6 till 5 p. m. on 9-8-90. Although the list witness Gangamma, the kept mistress of the deceased, is not examined the testimony of P. Ws. 1 and 2 the immediate neighbours of the deceased is sufficient to bring home the incident of the accrsed kicking the deceased on his stomach having not gratified with the demand for toddy. The medical evidence consistently brings home the cause of death due to peritonitis and the septic shock after an operation due to the blunt injury suffered by the deceased on his abdomen due to a kick. No other cause for his injury or the death is successfully probabilised by the defence.

( 6 ) THUS it is established that the accused beat the deceased with hands and kicked him with legs and thereby the deceased sustained injury to his intestines and died after five days of the incident, after medical treatment and surgical intervention. There is no positive medical evidence that either the death of the deceased was due to the injury to the intestines or that it was sufficient in the ordinary course of nat

Click Here to Read the rest of this document