The central legal point established in the judgment is the consideration of the nature of the injury in determining the offence under Section 326 IPC, and the court's discretion to modify the sentence based on the petitioner's age and the time elapsed.

JUDGMENT :

ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY, J.

1. Heard Mr. Vikash Pandey, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner along with Ms. Rakhi Sharma, Advocate.

2. Heard Mr. Ashok Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party-State.

3. Present criminal revision is directed against the judgment dated 25.02.2003, passed by learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Simdega in Criminal Appeal No. 46 of 1992, whereby the appeal filed by the petitioner has been dismissed and the learned appellate court has confirmed the judgment of conviction and sentence of 2 years rigorous imprisonment dated 26.11.1992, passed by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Simdega in S.T. No. 209/90 (T.R. No. 114/91) for the offence punishable under Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code.

4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner while assailing the impugned judgments has submitted that though there are concurrent findings recorded by the learned courts below, but the impugned judgments are perverse and call for interference. Learned counsel submits that the learned courts below have not properly considered the nature of injury which was a result of single blow on the head of the informant which could not be said to be a grievous injury as defined under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code. Learned counsel further submits that it has come on record that there was previous enmity between the petitioner and the informant and there was altercation and it appears that at the stage of scuffling, the injury was caused. There was no intention to commit the crime and it was merely accidental in nature. Learned counsel further submits that without prejudice to the aforesaid submissions, present age of the petitioner is more than 69 years and he has faced the criminal case for more than 30 years now as the F.I.R. was lodged on 31.05.1990 and much time has elapsed from the date of incident. He submits that considering this aspect of the matter, the sentence of the petitioner may be modified and some fine may be imposed. He also submits that the present offence is the first offence of the petitioner.

5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party-State has opposed the prayer and has submitted that there are concurrent findings recorded by the learned courts below after considering the evidences on record and there is no scope for re-appreciation of evidences and coming to a different finding in revisional jurisdiction. He also submits that argument of the petitioner in connection with nature of injury has been duly considered by the learned courts below and the doctor has also opined that injury was grievous in nature. Learned counsel submits that as the injury was grievous in nature, even though it was a result of single blow, the same was sufficient to convict the petitioner for the offence under Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code. However, he does not dispute the fact that it has come on record that there was some enmity between the petitioner and the informant and there was also fight between the parties. It is further not in dispute that the present offence is the first offence of the petitioner.

6. During the course of argument, learned counsel for the opposite party-State does not dispute the fact that there is no minimum sentence as such prescribed under Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code and at present the petitioner is more than 69 years of age. Learned counsel has also submitted that so far as sentence is concerned, it is for the court to take appropriate call in the matter, however sentence of two years is sufficient considering the nature of offence.

7. As per the prosecution case, F.I.R. Number 42/90, in police station Simdega was instituted for the offence under Section 324/307 IPC which was based on the statement of informant/injured person. It was alleged that on 31.05.1990 at about 7.30 A.M. he was cleaning his shop situated at Simdega-Ranchi main road and the petitioner parked his cycle in front of hi