Offence committed does not fall u/s 326.

These are several proceedings by various persons in respect of the same offence. The accused party and the prosecution party lived in the same village as neighbours. They belong to the same caste. The trouble started, when A1’s daughter fell in love with the son of P.W.4 and brother of P.W.1. Four months prior to the occurrence, A1 warned to settle the matter by way of marriage and made overtures to P.W.4 in that regard. But that met with a blunt refusal. From that time, resentment and animosity have been growing between the parties. On 16.8.1983, at about 10 p.m. as per the prosecution, A1 accompanied by his sons A2 to A4 and his wife A5 went to throw a challenge to P.W.4 and abusing them, standing in, the front of P.W.4’s house. P.W.4 closed the doors of his house. Sometime later, when P.W.1 accompanied by her husband entered the house of backdoor, she wanted to put an end to the shouts by the prosecution party and came before them and questioned about their behaviour. Then Al, attacked P,W. 1 and she sustained injury. Upon the Complaint of P.W.1, the Inspector of Police of Kottar, took up investigation and filed a final report under Sec. 173, Cr.P.C, to the effect that the offences under Secs. 326, 147 and 148, I.P.C., appeared to have been committed by the accused. The trial Court, after perusing the evidence adduced by the prosecution consisting of the testimonies of P.Ws. 1 to 7 and five exhibits, came to the conclusion that A2 to A5, were not guilty of any offence and that Al was guilty of offences under Sec. 324, I.P.C. and convicted him accordingly and released him on probation of good conduct, by judgment dated 4th February, 1984. As against these findings and sentence, the State has preferred Crl. A.No. 863 of 1984, contending that the offence committed by Al was one under Sec. 326, I.P.C. and not one under Sec. 324, I.P.C. as held by the trial Court. The first accused filed Revision Case No. 382 of 1987 contending that he is not guilty of any offence. P.W.1 on her side filed two revision petitions. The first one viz. Crl. R.C. No. 197 of 1984 is filed against the acquittal of Al under Sec. 326, I.P.C. and of the other under Sec. 147 read with Sec. 326, I.P.C, and the second one viz. Crl.R.C. No. 198 of 1984 is filed for the enhancement of sentence in respect of A1 for the conviction under Sec. 324, I.P.C.

2. All the parties were heard elaborately. The liability of Al and the liability of other accused was stressed upon. As far as Al is concerned, the evidence on record shows clearly that he is the person who inflicted on P.W.1 the injury found on her by the doctors P.W.3 and P.W.7. This point is also not seriously disputed by the learned counsel for the accused. The contention put forth in his argument is regarding the nature of offence. The learned counsel appearing for Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel appearing for the victim P.W.1, would contend that the offence is under Sec. 326, I.P.C. The learned counsel appearing for the accused would contend that the offence is only under Sec. 324, I.P.

3. I shall proceed to examine those questions as per the wound certificate. The injury is as follows:

“1. Incised wound on the posterior aspect of the left wrist joint horizontally placed 3 cm. x 1 cm. x depth not probed (bone deep) O/E. Patient not able to extend left wrist joint and metacarpo phalageal joints of all the fingers Surgeons note. Extension tenderness of left hand were totally dissected. Left wrist joint cavity was found opened. The cut ends of the tenderness were sutured, X-ray left wrist - No bony injury, Ad. on 6th March, 1983 Dis on 26.3.1983, 441 4-2-9183. Opinion-Injury No. 1 is grievous in nature”.

It is further in the evidence of P.W.3 which is unchallenged that P.W.1 was in the hospital from 6.2.1983 to 26.3.1983 that is to say for a period of 48 days.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the accused placing reliance on the decision of this Court in Joseph alias Durain, 1985 M.L.J. (Cr