Non-production of X-ray report is not a ground to disbelieve the case of the prosecution or to acquit a person for causing grievous hurt.

G.Jayachandran, J.

The revision petitioners herein are accused 1 to 9, who were tried for the offence committed by them on 21.12.2004 at about 10 O' Clock. The complaint of one Ramesh (P.W.1) is that pursuant to the land dispute, when he was cleaning his land along with his brother, mother and relatives, A.1 to A.9 with illegal intention to cause disturbance to his peaceful possession of the property, came with weapons like aruval and sticks and with common object, trespassed into his land and assaulted him indiscriminately with their weapons. When his mother tried to prevent, she was pulled by her hair and stamped. One Vellaipandi, who came for their rescue, was also pushed down and stamped by the accused persons. Attributing overtact to each of the accused and injuries found on their body, the complaint was given for offence under Sections 147, 148, 447, 323, 324, 353 and 506(ii) IPC specifying overtact to each of the accused. The matter was investigated by the respondent police and final report was filed.

2. Pursuant to the final report, the Trial Court framed the charge against the accused as below:

(i) A.1	148, 447, 326 and 506(ii) IPC;
(ii) A.2 to A.4	148, 447, 324 and 506(ii) IPC;
(iii) A.5 and A.6	147, 447 and 323 IPC; and
(iv) A.7 to A.9	147, 447, 323 and 353 IPC

To prove the charges, the prosecution has examined 10 witnesses and marked 8 exhibits and 1 material object.

3. The learned District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate No.I, Usilampatti on considering the ocular evidence of the injured witness (Ramesh), the medical certificate issued by Dr.Paunraj (P.W.9), the witnesses to the occurrence Vellaipandi (P.W.2) and Ponmuthu (P.W.6) had held that due to the attack of A.1 with M.O.1, P.W.1 has sustained cut injury on his forearm. Considering the nature of the injury, the doctor has certified it as grievous injury. Accused 1 to 9 have assembled unlawfully carrying weapon and caused hurt to P.W.1, has been proved beyond reasonable doubt by the prosecution and therefore, A.1 is guilty of offence under Section 326 IPC, A.2 to A.4 are found guilty of offence under Section 324 IPC, A.5 is found guilty of offence under Section 323 IPC, A.1 to A.4 are found guilty of offence under Section 148 IPC, A.5 to A.9 are found guilty of offence under Section 147 IPC and A.1 to A.9 are found guilty of offence under Section 447 IPC. For the rest of the charges, the Trial Court has acquitted the accused for want of proof. Aggrieved by that, the accused 1 to 9 have preferred appeal before the learned Sixth Additional Sessions Judge, Madurai.

4. The lower appellate Court on appreciation of the evidence has confirmed the Judgment of the Trial Court. The present Criminal Revision case is preferred against the Judgment of the learned Sixth Additional Sessions Judge, Madurai passed in C.A.No.23 of 2011 confirming the Judgment of the Trial Court passed in C.C.No.198 of 2005.

5. The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioners would submit that the Trial Court has erred in convicting A.1 for offence under Section 326 IPC for voluntarily causing grievous hurt by dangerous weapon while none of the witnesses would specifically attribute any particular overtact against A.1. The learned counsel would submit that the Trial Court failed to appreciate the contradiction in the testimony of P.W.1 and his complaint given to the police. In the absence of production of X-ray Report, the Courts below ought not to have held A.1 guilty for offence under Section 326 IPC.

6. In so far as the sentence and conviction for the other accused is concerned, the learned counsel would submit that a sympathetic view shall be taken regarding the sentence and the same may be modified.

7. The learned Government Advocate (Criminal side) representing the State would submit that non-production of X