The main legal point established is that bodily pain is sufficient to constitute hurt under Section 319 IPC, and the imposition of default sentence for non-payment of compensation under the Probation of Offenders Act is against the purpose and spirit of the Act.

Bhaskaran Pillai Sudheendra Kumar, J.

1. The revision petitioner is the accused in CC No. 397 of 2006 on the files of the Court of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nilambur. The Trial Court convicted the revision petitioner under Sections 447 and 324 of IPC and released him under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, on his executing a bond for Rs. 10,000/- with two solvent sureties, each for the like sum undertaking to keep peace and maintain good behaviour for one year and to appear and receive the sentence as and when called for within the said period of one year. The revision petitioner was also directed to pay a sum of Rs. 2,000/- to PW 3 as compensation under Section 5 of the Probation of Offenders Act with a default clause for simple imprisonment for one month. The appeal filed against the said conviction and order of probation was dismissed.

2. The prosecution allegation is that on 27/10/2006 at about 6.30 p.m., the revision petitioner trespassed into the court yard of the house of PW 3 and caused hurt on him by hitting him with a torch.

3. Before the Trial Court, PW 1 to PW 6 were examined and Exts. P1 to P4 were marked for the prosecution, besides identifying MO 1 torch. Exts. D1 to D3 were marked for the defence.

4. PW 3 is the injured, who stated about the incident in tune with the prosecution case. According to PW 3, on 27/10/2006 at about 6.30 p.m., the revision petitioner uttered abusive words against PW 2, who was the Vicar of the church, when PW 2 reached the court yard of the house of PW 3. On seeing this, PW 3 intervened. Then, the revision petitioner hit PW 3 with MO 1 torch, causing injuries on him.

5. PW 2 is the occurrence witness, who supported the evidence of PW 3 in all material aspects.

6. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner that eventhough there was no medical evidence before the Court to prove the injuries sustained by PW 3, the Courts below convicted the revision petitioner under Section 324 IPC and consequently, the conviction and sentence under Section 324 IPC cannot be sustained.

7. Per contra, the learned Public Prosecutor has argued that since there was evidence of PW 2 and PW 3 with regard to the injuries sustained by PW 3, the Courts below rightly convicted the revision petitioner under Section 324 IPC, particularly when the weapon with which the infliction was made by the revision petitioner was also recovered and identified.

8. In this context, it will be profitable to extract Section 324 IPC, which reads thus:

"324. Voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons or means.--Whoever, except in the case provided for by Section 334, voluntarily causes hurt by means of any instrument for shooting, stabbing or cutting, or any instrument which, used as weapon of offence, is likely to cause death, or by means of fire or any heated substance, or by means of any poison or any corrosive substance, or by means of any explosive substance or by means of any substance which it is deleterious to the human body to inhale, to swallow, or to receive into the blood, or by means of any animal, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both."

It is clear from Section 324 IPC that in order to attract the offence under Section 324 IPC, hurt should be caused by means of any weapon as described under Section 324 IPC.

9. Hurt is defined in Section 319 IPC, which reads as follows:

"319. Hurt.--Whoever causes bodily pain, disease or infirmity to any person is said to cause hurt."

10. It is clear from Section 319 IPC that in order to constitute hurt, even bodily pain is sufficient. The evidence of PW 3 would show that PW 3 was admitted in the hospital after the incident in this case, as he sustained injury in the incident. PW 3 stated that he fell down and became unconscious when the revision petitioner hit with MO 1 torch on his face. PW 2 also supported the evidence of PW 3 in all materia