The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of injuries, the definition of deadly weapons, and the distinction between grievous and simple injuries under the IPC.

JUDGMENT :

K. Natarajan, J.

This revision petition is filed by accused No.3 being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 19-8-2008 passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division) and Judicial Magistrate First Class, Nanjangudu, in Criminal Case No.661 of 2006 and confirmed by the III Additional District Judge, Mysuru, in Criminal Appeal No.205 of 2008 dated 13-4-2010.

2. The petitioner was accused No.3 and the respondent was the complainant before the trial Court. The ranks of the parties before the trial Court are retained for the sake of convenience.

3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent-State. Perused the records.

4. The factual matrix of the case of the prosecution before the trial Court is that the Badanavalu Police filed charge-sheet against the petitioner and other two accused persons for the offences punishable under Sections 324 and 326 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, 'the I.P.C.') on the complaint of one Siddaraju-PW1. It was alleged that on 2-4-2006 at about 10.30 p.m., when the complainant was in the house, the accused persons with common intention picked up quarrel with his father-PW2. When PW1 questioned the same, accused No.1 assaulted PW1 with stone, accused No.2 assaulted PW1 on his backside of the head and accused No.3-the present petitioner assaulted PW1 with a wooden log/club on his left shoulder and caused fracture. The injured was shifted to the hospital for treatment and a complaint came to be lodged by PW1 as per Ex.P1. The Police have arrested the accused. Later, they have been released on bail. After investigation, a charge-sheet came to be filed. The trial Court framed the charges against the accused under Sections 324 and 326 of the I.P.C. The accused pleaded not guilty and accordingly, the prosecution called upon to adduce evidence. The prosecution in all examined nine witnesses as PW1 to PW9 and got marked six documents as per Ex.P1 to Ex.P6 and also got marked three material objects as per MO.1 to MO.3. Accused were also examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The case of the accused was of total denial, but not entered into any defence. After hearing the arguments, the trial Judge acquitted accused No.2, but convicted accused No.1 for the offence punishable under Section 324 read with Section 34 of the I.P.C. and accused No.3-the present petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 326 I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years with fine of Rs.5000/- and in default of payment of fine, he shall further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of four months vide judgment dated 19-8-2008. Being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and order of sentence, accused Nos.1 and 3 preferred an appeal before the III Additional District Judge, Mysuru, in Criminal Appeal No.205 of 2008. The Appellate Court allowed the appeal filed by accused No.1 and acquitted him, but dismissed the appeal of the present petitioner and confirmed the judgment of conviction and order of sentence vide judgment dated 13-4-2010. Being aggrieved by the concurrent findings, this revision petition is filed by accused No.3.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that there is contradictory in the evidence of PW1 and PW2, who are eyewitnesses and interested witnesses. The other eyewitnesses have turned hostile. Even as per the evidence of the Doctor, there is no injury sustained by PW1 though both the witnesses have stated that accused Nos.1 and 3 have assaulted with wooden log/club and stone. Even otherwise, the entire evidence of the prosecution is acceptable as true; the Wound Certificate given by the Doctor that injuries of PW1 are grievous in nature cannot be acceptable, as there is no X-Ray film and report produced before the Court. Even otherwise, the wooden log/stick cannot be considered as a deadly weapon in order to con