In cases involving grievous hurt, the prosecution must prove the nature of the injury beyond reasonable doubt. Medical evidence, including x-ray reports and the testimony of doctors, is crucial in establishing the severity of the injury. The opinion of the Radiologist who interprets the x-ray reports is significant and should be presented in court to prove the findings.

1. - Petitioner Ram Swaroop along with one Radhey Shyam had faced trial for the offence under sections 447, 324 and 325/34 Indian Penal Code in the Court of Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Jahazpur. The complainant had quarrels with the petitioner and Radhey Shyam in connection with agricultural land. It was alleged that on September 1, 1972 these two persons trespassed the field in dispute and complainant Dhan Raj while restraining them from cutting the grass was given a beating with lathi by the petitioner and axe by Radhey Shyam, Dhan Raj lodged a complainant with the Police and the accused petitioner Ram Swaroop and co-accused Radhey Shyam were challan in the Court of the learned Magistrate, Jahazpur. The learned Magistrate on trial held Radhey Shyam guilty for the offence under section 324 Indian Penal Code-and sentenced him to six months rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 100/-, in default of payment of fine to undergo one months rigorous imprisonment. Ram Swaroop petitioner was held guilty for the offence under section 325 Indian Penal Code and sentenced to nine months rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 200/-, in default of payment of fine to undergo two months rigorous imprisonment.

2. Being aggrieved by their conviction and sentences Radhey Shyam and Ram Swaroop preferred an appeal in the Court of Sessions Judge, Bhilwara. The learned Sessions Judge by his judgment dated July 28, 1977 acquitted Radhey Shyam but maintained the conviction of the petitioner for the offence under section 325 Indian Penal Code. He however, reduced the sentence of nine months rigorous imprisonment to six months rigorous imprisonment. It is against that judgment that the petitioner has invoked the revisional jurisdiction of this Court.

3. Mr. N.P. Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner did not assail the findings of the courts below regarding the incident but vehemently urged that there is no evidence to establish that any grievous injury was sustained by the complainant and therefore, the petitioner should have been convicted only for the offence under section 323 Indian Penal Code.

4. Mr. H.N. Calla, learned Public Prosecutor for the State submitted that prosecution has proved the grievous injury of Dhan Raj by medical evidence and therefore, the findings of the two courts below do not call for any interference.

5. To appreciate the arguments advanced from both the sides and to arrive at a conclusion whether prosecution has succeeded in establishing any of the injuries sustained by Dhan Raj to be grievous . three witnesses vis. the complainant and the two Doctors are of importance.

6. Grievous injury according to the prosecution was fracture of the 6th rib of the complainant. Dhan Raj was deposed that one lathi blow on his rib was inflicted by Ram Swaroop petitioner. It has also stated that he had complained pain on the ribs for two days to the Doctor posted at Khajuri. According to him that Doctor had neither applied any medicine on the rib nor bandaged it. He however stated that he had gone to Bhilwara Hospital where one sticken piece was pasted on the rib but that portion was not plastered.

7. Referring to the statements of Dr. Amrat Lal (P.W. 1) and Dr. Ved Prakash (P.W. 4) Mr. Gupta has emphasised that the first two x-rays do not point out any fracture. It was as late as on September 5, 1972 that the third x-ray was taken, which is said to have indicated a fracture of the 6th rib. The Doctor or the Technician who had taken the x-ray have not been examined to prove the report.

8. Dr. Ved Prakash (P.W. 4) Medical Officer, Khajuri had examined the injuries or Dhan Raj on September 1, 1972 the date of the occurrence itself. According to the Doctor, all the injuries noted by him on the person of Dhan Raj were simple and caused by blunt object and might have been sustained within two hours of his examining the injured. The Doctor has categorically stated that he did not advice for any x ray nor was Dhan Raj admitted as indoor