R. N. Thakur, J.

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