Back
1993 Supreme(Ori) 108
High Court Of Orissa
B. N. DASH
SUBASH CHANDRA PANDA - Appellant
Versus
STATE - Respondent
Criminal Revision 559 Of 1990
Decided On : 09/08/1993
D.K.Mishra, P.PALIT
A partial cut to a bone can be considered a fracture within the meaning of Section 320, IPC if it breaks the bone to some extent.
Headnote:
CRIMINAL LAW - SECTION 326 READ WITH SECTION 34, IPC - FACTUAL MATRIX - ASSAULT WITH KATIS RESULTING IN GRIEVOUS INJURIES - INTERPRETATION OF SECTION 320, IPC - FRACTURE OF BONE - MEDICAL EVIDENCE - CONVICTION UPHELD.
Fact of the Case:
The accused-petitioners were convicted under Section 326 read with Section 34, IPC for assaulting the victim with katis, causing grievous injuries. The victim, a meat seller, was attacked by the accused while he was collecting money for the meat he had sold. The accused claimed that the case was falsely foisted against them due to prior enmity between their families and the villagers.
Finding of the Court:
The court upheld the conviction of the accused-petitioners, holding that the evidence of the victim and the medical evidence corroborated each other and established the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The court also held that the injury sustained by the victim, a cut to the scapula-bone, was a fracture within the meaning of Section 320, IPC, even though the extent of the cut was not ascertainable.
Issues: 1. Whether the evidence of the victim and the medical evidence corroborated each other to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. 2. Whether the injury sustained by the victim was a fracture within the meaning of Section 320, IPC.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the evidence of the victim and the medical evidence corroborated each other and established the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The court noted that the victim's testimony was consistent with the medical evidence, which showed that the victim had sustained grievous injuries as a result of the assault. 2. The court held that the injury sustained by the victim, a cut to the scapula-bone, was a fracture within the meaning of Section 320, IPC. The court relied on the definition of 'fracture' in Stedman's Medical Dictionary, which defines a fracture as 'a break, especially the breaking of a bone or cartilage'. The court held that a partial cut to a bone can be considered a fracture if it breaks the bone to some extent.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the revision petition and upheld the conviction of the accused-petitioners under Section 326 read with Section 34, IPC.
B. N. DASH, J.
( 1 ) THIS revision is directed against the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge, Ganjan, Barhampur altering the conviction and sentence of the accused-petitioners.
( 2 ) THE prosecution case, shortly stated, is that on 6-10-1987 sometime in the morning P. W. 1 R. Elleya Reddy belonging to village Uppalapati killed a goat and sold the meat to his co-villagers and at about 8 in the morning while he was passing on the village street crossing the houses of the accused persons for collection of the price of the meat sold, accused Subash Chandra Panda enquired of him as to the amount of profit earned by him by selling the meat and when P. W. 1 replied that he had no business to poke his nose into his affairs, the latter got infuriated and attacked P. W. 1 along with his co-accused persons who are his brothers by means of Katis (M. Os. I, II, IV and V ). As a result of the assaults with Katis, P. W. 1 sustained bleeding injuries and after the matter was subsided by the villagers he lodged the FIR, Ext. 1, at Arjipalli police out-put on the same day at about noon time. In course of investigation P. W. 1 was sent for medical examination, theatis (M. Os. I, II, IV and V) were seized on production by the accused persons, some blood stained earth was seized from the spot and so also the wearing apparels of the injured (P. W. 1), the seized articles were sent for chemical examination and after completion of investigation charge-sheet having been placed, the accused persons faced trial for the offence punishable under S. 307 read with S. 34, IPC.
( 3 ) THE defence was one of denial and according to the accused persons, the case had been falsely foisted against them out of previous enmity between the four Brahmin families of the village including the accused persons and the remaining villagers. Three witnesses were examined on behalf of the defence of whom D. W. 1, a co-villager of the parties deposed that there was no such occurrence and the other two witnesses were examined to prove certain documents relating to prior litigation between Dasarathi Panda, the father of accused Subash, Jyotiraj and Prafulla on the one hand and some villagers on the other.
( 4 ) AT the trial, the prosecution examined as many as 6 witnesses in support of its case of whom P. W. 1 has already been introduced; P. Ws. 2 and 3 were said to be eye-witnesses to the alleged occurrence; P. W. 4 was a post occurrence witness and P. Ws. 5 and 6 were respectively the investigating officer and the medical officer. On a consideration of the entire evidence on record, the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Chhatrapur believed the prosecution case and convicted the accused persons u / S. 307 read with S. 34, IPC and sentenced each of them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay a fine of Rs. 200/-, in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a further period of two months. The accused persons having appealed against such order of conviction and sentence, the learned Sessions Judge modified the conviction holding the accused persons guilty under S. 326 read with S. 34, IPC. and sentenced each of them to the period of imprisonment already undergone and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a term of one year.
( 5 ) MR. P. Palit, the learned counsel for the petitioners has raised two contentions. His first contention is that the learned Sessions Judge having disbelieved the evidence of P. Ws. 2 and 3 he could not have convicted the accused persons on the uncorroborated testimony of P. W. 1. His second contention is that the injuries received by P. W. 1 having not been proved to be grievous within the meaning of S. 320, IPC. , the accused persons could not be convicted u/s. 326 read with S. 34, IPC. The learned Addl. Standing Counsel, on the other hand, supports the impugned judgment.
( 6 ) AS regards the first contention, I find that the learned Sessions Judge has nowhere disbelieved the evidence
