Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
(NAGPUR BENCH)
Batta R.K., J.
Abdul Sajid Abdul Sadiq .... Applicant.
Versus
State of Maharashtra.... Respondent.
Criminal Revision Application No. 118 of 1999, decided on 20-3-2003.
Advocates appeared :
Rajendra Daga, for applicant.
Ms. Neeta Jog, A.P.P., for respondent/State.
Held: This clause can be divided into three parts, namely, (a) any hurt which endangers life, (b) which causes the sufferer to be during the space of twenty days in severe bodily pain, and (c) or unable to follow his ordinary pursuits. The first part is totally independent and it deals with any hurt which endangers with life. In so far as second part is concerned there is no ambiguity since it provides for case of any hurt which causes the sufferer to be during the space of twenty days in severe bodily pain. The problem only arises since after the second clause there is a comma and then follows the third clause. For unable to follow his ordinary pursuits". If the third clause is read totally independent it would mean that if a person is not able to follow his ordinary pursuits even for one day as a result of any hurt it may lead to conviction under Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code which is punishable with life imprisonment or with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extent to ten years and shall also be liable to fine which obviously does not appear to be the intention of the Legislature. The dominant object of clause 8 of Section 320 IPC is that it makes any simple hurt as grievous if it endangers the or causes severe bodily pains to a person during twenty days and he is unable to follow his ordinary pursuits. The third clause has to be read diestrum generis in the light of earlier two clause in order to give meaning to it. The, first clause deals with any hurt which endangers life and second clause deals with any hurt which cause the sufferer to be during the space of twenty days in severe bodily pain. It is in this light that the third clause is required to be given a meaning and in order to give meaning to the same as also to the intention of the legislature the" use of comma in between the word "pain" and "or" has to be Ignored. (Para 14)
Further held: Coming to the case under consideration; the assault with knife is alleged to have taken place during the scuffle. PW-3 has stated that when he reached the Scuffle between the complainant/ injured and accused No. 1 namely the applicant was going on. The medical evidence of Doctor (PW-5) shows following injuries on the person of victim Mushtaq:-( 1). stab Injury at the base of sternum of size 1" x 1/4 x 1". Bleeding present. injury appears to be fresh. (2) Abrasion over abdomen just above umbilicus of size 1/4". (3) Abrasion over index finger of left hand over interphalangeal joint. According to Doctor (PW-5), injury No. 2 was grievous and was possible by the knife in question. He however categorically stated that no fracture was detected from x-ray Report except that the Doctor (PW-5) merely stated that the injury was grievous. The prosecution did not bring any other facts which would be necessary for bringing the case under clause 8 of Section 320 of the Indian Penal Code. Neither it was elicited from the Doctor that the injury was endangering to life nor that the injured suffered severe bodily pain during the space of 20 days nor that he was unable too follow his ordinary pursuits during the said period. In the absence of such evidence having been led by the prosecution. it is not possible on the basis of the evidence of Doctor (PW -5) to hold that the injury in question falls under clause 8 of Section 320 of the Indian Penal Code. (Para 23)
2. Learned Advocate for the applicant urged before me that even on admitted facts the offence as against the applicant would not fall under section 326 of the Indian Penal Code but that it would fall under section 324 of the Indian Penal Code. In support of this submission, it is urged by him that P.W. 3 admits that there was scuffle between the applicant and victim Mushtaq and the injury in question is alleged to have been inflicted during the said scuffle. According to the learned Advocate for the applicant, though according to the doctor the injury in question is said to be grievous yet the prosecution through medical evidence or otherwise has failed to prove that the injury in question falls under any clause of section 320 of the Indian Penal Code. He also drew my attention to the Medical Certificate (Exh. 41) which was proved by Doctor (P.W. 5) wherein it has been clearly opined that the injury was likely to heal within ten to twelve days, if no complication occurs. No fracture was found. He, therefore, contends that the prosecution has neither been able to establish that the injured victim suffered severe bodily pain during the space of 20 days nor that he was unable to follow his ordinary pursuits for the said period. He, therefore, contends that the offence in question would fall under section 324 of the Indian Penal Code and taking into consideration that the applicant had been in custody for about six months, the said period be treated as sufficient punishment and the applicant be ordered to be acquitted of the charge under section 326 of the Indian Penal Code.
3. On the other hand, learned A.P.P. appearing on behalf of the respondent/State, has urged before me that according to the Medical Officer (P.W. 5), the injury was grievous in nature and taking into account that according to the Medical Certificate (Exh. 41), the injury would take ten to twelve days to heal; it follows that the injury in question would fall within the ambit of Clause 8 of section 320 of the Indian Penal Code. According to the learned A.P.P., Clause 8 of section 320 consists of three parts which have to be read independent of each other namely, (i) any hurt, which endangers life; (ii) any hurt which causes the sufferer to be during the space of twenty days in severe bodily pain; and (iii) any hurt on account of which the injured is unable to follow his ordinary pursuits. According to her, the expression occurring in second part of Clause 8 of section 320 namely, "during the space of twenty days" cannot be read and incorporated into the expression "unable to follow his ordinary pursuits". It is pointed out by her that the use of comma after the words "bodily pain" and before the expression "or unable to follow his ordinary pursuits" makes it crystal clear that the concept of twenty days cannot be introduced or incorporated in the third part of Clause 8 of section 320 namely, "or unable to follow his ordinary pursuits".
4. In order to deal with the arguments advanced by the learned A.P.P., it will be necessary to first refer to principles of interpretation relating to punctuations. The American view has noted down in N.S. Bindras Interpretation of Statutes, IX Edition under Chapter 2 note (h) Punctuations and Brackets at pages 98-99 is as under :-
"American view.---Punctuation is a most fallible standard by which to interpret a writi
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
