The distinction between simple hurt and grievous hurt under Sections 319 and 320 of the Indian Penal Code and the requirement of proof that the injuries endangered the victim's life or caused severe bodily pain or inability to follow ordinary pursuits for 20 days to constitute grievous hurt.

( 1 ) THIS is a Criminal Revision against a judgment and order of conviction under Section 325 of the Indian Penal Code and sentence of rigorous imprisonment for one year and in default rigorous imprisonment for six months as passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Port Blair, subsequently affirmed by the learned Sessions Judge, Andaman and Nicobar Islands, Port blair in Criminal Appeal No. 18 of 2003.

( 2 ) IT is now well settled that in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction the High Court has the power to call for and examine the records of any proceeding for the purpose of satisfying itself as to the correctness, legality or propriety of any finding, sentence or order. In other words the jurisdiction is one of supervisory jurisdiction exercised by the High Court to correct the miscarriage of justice. However, such revisional power cannot be equated with the power of an appellate Court nor can it be treated even as a second appellate jurisdiction. It is, therefore, not be appropriate for this Court to re-appreciate the evidence and to come to its own conclusion when such evidence has already been appreciated by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate as well as by the learned Sessions Judge in appeal, unless any glaring defects is brought to its notice which would otherwise tantamount to gross miscarriage of justice.

( 3 ) THE brief facts of this case are as follows :-On October 01, 1993 at about 10. 30 a. m. while the complainant P. Yusuf on his way to attend prayer at Police Masjid reached near the bus Terminus of Aberdeen Bazar, and found both Maideen and Bal krishnan were gossiping there. The complainant also joined in gossiping with them. All of a sudden the accused K. V. Hussain, an employee of state Transport Services, came to the spot with an iron rod in his hand and assaulted P. Yusuf with the said iron rod on the back of his head and as the complainant turned back the accused petitioner gave another blow on the left side of his face. The complainant then fell down on the ground when the accused dealt another blow on his back. However, he was somehow saved at the intervention of Bal Krishnan and Maideen. The complainant was immediately removed to the hospital where he made a statement before the police and the same was treated as FIR.

( 4 ) THE FIR being recorded the police registered a case under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, commenced investigation and arrested the petitioner. After his detention in custody for considerable period the petitioner was released on bail. However, on completion of investigation the police submitted Charge sheet under Section 325 of the Indian Penal Code.

( 5 ) SUBSEQUENTLY the accused was placed on trial to answer a charge under Section 325 of the Indian Penal Code.

( 6 ) HEARD the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner as well as the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the State, perused the judgments of both the Courts below as well as the depositions of the witnesses and other materials on record.

( 7 ) IN course of trial prosecution examined as many as nine witnesses. Out of them, the complainant examined himself as P. W. 1 and also examined p. W. 4 - Sulaman and P. W. 5 - Ibrahim-as the eye witnesses to the occurrence. The P. W. 6, Dr. Laxmi Narshima is the Medical Officer who treated the injured p. W. 1 at the hospital.

( 8 ) BOTH the trial Court as well as the appellate Court considered in detail the evidence of P. W. 1 - P. Yusuf, P. W. 4 - Sulaman and P. W. 5 - Ibrahim, being the injured as well as the eye witnesses to the occurrence and very rightly accepted their evidence. I do not find any justification, in exercise of the revisional jurisdiction, to interfere with such concurrent findings of the Courts below.

( 9 ) HOWEVER, in the instant case, from perusal of the evidence of P. W. 6-the Doctor, I find that all the injuries suffered by the victim were simple in nature and according to the Doctor such injuries wer