Loss of a tooth qualifies as grievous hurt under IPC; X-ray not mandatory for conviction when supported by other evidence.

CAV ORDER

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH)

1. This Criminal Revision Petition is filed by the petitioner, being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 22.06.2015 passed in C.C.No.362/2014 by the Principal Chief Judicial Magistrate, Vijaypur (for short ‘Trial Court’) and its confirmation judgment and order dated 15.11.2018 passed in Crl.A.No.30/2015 by the IV Additional Sessions Judge, Vijayapur (for short ‘Appellate Court’), wherein the petitioner/accused has been convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 324 and 326 of Indian Penal Code (for short ‘ IPC ’).

2. The ranks of the parties will be considered henceforth as that of Trial Court for convenience.

Factual matrix of the case:

3. It is the case of the prosecution that on 26.11.2013 at about 5.30 p.m., the complainant Abdul Kareem lodged a complaint stating that, on 25.11.2013, at about 3.00 p.m., when he was on the way to his house, after finishing his regular work, the accused who is his neighbour, requested him to pay some amount for the purpose of consuming alcohol. When the complainant refused to pay the money, all of a sudden, the accused started abusing him in filthy language and assaulted him by means of wooden stick on his face. As a result of which, the complainant lost one of his teeth and also sustained other injuries. At that time, Ibrahim and Banubi rescued him, then, he went to the hospital for treatment.

4. Based on the information, a case came to be registered in Crime No.151/2013 for the offences under Sections 324 , 326, 504 of IPC . After conducting investigation and submitted the charge sheet.

5. To prove the case of the prosecution, the prosecution examined in all 6 witnesses as PW.1 to PW.6 and got marked 6 documents as Exs.P1 to P6 and also identified two material objects as MOs.1 and 2.

6. The Trial Court after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence on record, acquitted the accused for the offence under Section 504 of IPC and convicted the accused for Sections 324 and 326 of IPC . Being aggrieved by the same, the accused preferred an appeal before the Appellate Court. The Appellate Court allowed the said appeal in part as follows:

(A) Criminal Appeal filed by the appellant under Section 374(3)(a) of Cr.P.C is partly allowed.

(B) Consequently, the interim stay granted stands vacated.

(C) The sentence passed by Principal CJM, Vijayapur against the appellant accused in C.C.No.362/2014 dated 22.06.2015 is modified in the following terms:-

(D) The sentence of the trial Court imposing simple imprisonment for six (6) months and fine of Rs.500/- for the offence punishable u/s. 324 of IPC shall sustain.

(E) The appellant shall undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six (6) months and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- for the offence punishable u/s. 326 of IPC .

(F) In case of default in payment of fine imposed on the both the counts, the appellant shall further undergo simple imprisonment for two (2) months.

Being aggrieved by the same, the accused has preferred this revision petition.

7. Heard Sri Avinash A. Uploankar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Jamadar Shahabuddin, learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent - State.

8. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner/accused that the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence recorded by the Courts below are contrary to the law and evidence on record.

Therefore, the same is liable to be set aside.

9. It is further submitted that the reasons assigned by the Courts below while passing the impugned judgment are not proper