In cases of grievous hurt, the nature and extent of injuries play a crucial role in determining the severity of the offense and the appropriate sentence.

Ujagar Singh, J.

1. Kewal Kumar received two injuries as per medical report Exhibit P. A. Both were caused by sharp-edged weapon within few hours of the examination which was done at 10 P. M. on 19th June; 1979. The doctor Shri R. K. Patnaik, P. W.1 kept with both these injuries under observation on that day and the patient was referred to the ENT Specialist and Dental Surgeon in respect of injury No.1 on right alae of the nose and it was only on 25th of June.1979 that P. W.1 described this injury as grievous in nature vide his report Exhibit P. C. The case earlier was registered under Sections 324/34, Indian Penal Code, against the present petitioner and his co-accused Satish Kumar. On report Exhibit P. C. , the offence was changed to 326/34, Indian Penal Code and the present petitioner and his co-accused surrendered and were arrested on 13th July, 1979, as they were on bail under the earlier offence. Satish Kumar was released on bail on the same day as he was under 21 years of age. Bail to the present petitioner was refused and be remained in custody for about 20/22 days.

2. These injuries were caused at about 8.30 P. M. on 19th June, 1979 when the petitioner and his co-accused were indulging in gunda gardi on that date. Kewal Ram P. W.4 requested them to desist from doing so but they did not oblige; rather Satish Kumar alias Kala caught hold of Kewal Kumar from the back side and the present petitioner hit him with a knife, caused hurt to the tongue and the upper right side gum uprooting one of his teeth. The prosecution after examining Dr. R. K. Patnaik, P. W.1 Ranjit Singh A. S. I. P. W.2, Constable Mange Ram P. W.3, Kewal Kumar P W.4, Raj Kumar P. W.5, Rajinder P. W.6, Sohan Lal P. W.7 and Attar Singh A. S. I. P. W.8 in support of its case closed its evidence.

3. After examining all the accused under Sec.313, Criminal Procedure Code, their defence was called for but no defence was produced. Rajinder P. W.6 and Sohan Lal P. W.7 did not support the prosecution but Kewal Kumar P. W.4 and Raj Kumar P. W.5, who are admittedly brothers did support, and the trial Court wrongly observed that there was no family member of Kewal Kumar P. W.4 to report the matter to the police which was present in the hospital. The trial Court relying upon the testimony of Kewal Kumar P. W.4 and Raj Kumar P. W.5 in support of the prosecution version found both the petitioner and his co-accused guilty under Sec.326/34, Indian Penal Code. While sentencing them, the trial Court observed that Satish Kumar accused was 19 years old when his statement was recorded and the age not having been challenged, he was released on his furnishing bond in the sum of Rs.1000.00 with one surety in the like amount for a period of one year to appear and receive the sentence whenever called upon during the period and in the meantime to keep peace and be of good behaviour under the supervision of the Probation Officer. This period has long expired and this grant of Probation has not even been challenged by the State or even the complainant.

4. The present petitioner having stated his age to be 22 years in his statement under Sec.313, Criminal Procedure Code, was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for three years under Sec.326, Indian Penal Code, and one years rigorous imprisonment under Sec.324, Indian Penal Code. These sentences were made to run concurrently.

5. The petitioner went up in appeal and during the pendency of the appeal, a compromise was effected between Kewal Kumar P. W.4, the injured and the present petitioner. This compromise was taken notice of by the appellate Court which after distinguishing the facts of the case of Santokh Singh V/s. Punjab State1 wherein the sentence from three years rigorous imprisonment was reduced to one already undergone in view of the compromise for an offence under Sec.307/326, Indian Penal Code, reduced the sentence to rigorous imprisonment for One year. The petitioner has filed this revision challenging the order of con