The central legal point established in the judgment is the classification of hurt as simple or grievous, based on the nature of the injury and the type of weapon used, as defined in the Indian Penal Code.

A-1 in the Sessions case in S.C.No.86 of 2007 on the file of the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Rasipuram, Namakkal District is the revision petitioner.

2. Noticing the following factual matrix in brief is sufficient to dispose of this Criminal revision:

A-1 and A-3 are spouses. A-1's mother is A-2. All belongs to Minnalkkal village in Namakkal District. Already there is property dispute between both sides. On 23.8.2006, at noon, when P.W.1, servant of P.W.2 was planting small plants on the small channel near the house of A-2, A-2 prevented it. Wordy altercation took place between P.W.2 and A-2. A-1 came there. He had assaulted P.W.2 on her head with M.O.1 firewood. P.W.3 husband of P.W.2, P.Ws.4 and 5 brothers of P.W.2 came there. Ex.P1 complaint was lodged by P.W.1 with Vannandhur police. A case in Cr.No.528/2006 was registered. After completing the investigation, P.W.16 Investigation Officer filed final report for offences under section 307, 323 and 307 r/w 34 I.P.C. before the committal Magistrate. The committal Magistrate committed the case to the Court of Principal Sessions Judge, Namakkal who made over the case to the Assistant Sessions Judge, Rasipuram for trial. Charges were framed. A-1 to A-3 pleaded not guilty. To substantiate the charges, prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 18, marked Ex.P1 to 8 and exhibited M.O.1.

3. Appreciating the said evidence, the trial Court while acquitting A-2 and A-3, convicted A-1 under section 326 I.P.C. and sentenced him to 3 years rigorous imprisonment and fined him Rs.1000/- in default to undergo 3 months simple imprisonment. The accused paid the fine amount.

4. Aggrieved, A-1 preferred Crl.A.No.76 of 2009. The learned Principal Sessions Judge, Namakkal after hearing both sides dismissed the Criminal appeal and confirmed the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial Court.

5. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner would contend that prosecution has thoroughly failed to establish the offence under section 326 I.P.C. Already, there was property dispute between P.W.2 and A-1's family. Near the place of occurrence, there is a pond. Even as per the prosecution version, there was quarrel between P.W.2 and A-2. In the circumstances, P.W.2 rolled down and fell into the said pond. However, nurturing ill-will, through her servant, P.W.2 has implicated A-1 also in this case. However, while appreciating the evidence this aspect has been overlooked by both the Courts below.

6. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner further contended that Section 27 Evidence Act recovery of M.O.1 firewood through A-2 is false. Further, the trial Court refused to believe the prosecution evidence with regard to A-2. A-2 has been acquitted. Further, when the Section 27 Evidence Act recovery of M.O.1 is not proved, the prosecution version with regard to the weapon goes away. Further, there is no acceptable evidence describing the nature of the weapon alleged to have been used in their commission of the offence.

7. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner further contended that both the Courts were carried away by the medical evidence of P.W.14 and they have not referred to M.O.1 and the nature of the injury. P.W.2 did not suffer grievous hurt. In this case, section 326 I.P.C. is not attracted.

8. On the other hand, the learned Govt. Advocate (Crl.side) submitted that P.W.2 having sustained head injury at the hands of A-1 has been spoken to by P.W.2/victim, and that has also been corroborated by P.W.1, the eye witness. Their oral evidence has been corroborated by the medical evidence of P.W.14. The defence suggestion that P.W.2 had rolled down and fell into the nearby pond remained only a suggestion and it was rejected by P.Ws.1 and 2. In the circumstances, in appreciation of the evidence let in, the trial Court and the Appellate Court have rightly convicted and sentenced A-1.

9. I have anxiously considered the rival submissions, perused the impugned judgments and the entire materials on record