O R D E R

This Criminal Revision Petition has been filed challenging the concurrent findings of the Courts below, holding the revision petitioner guilty of offences under Section 326 IPC and sentenced him to undergo two years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default to suffer one month simple imprisonment.

2. The case of the prosecution is that on 27.02.2010 at about 8:00 p.m., since the wife of the petitioner had refused to give money to the petitioner to buy drinks, the petitioner herein has attacked his wife with Aruval. On hearing the cry of the injured/PW1/Kala, the neighbours, who were examined as PW2, PW3 and PW5, had rushed to the spot and find the injured/PW1 with bleeding injury. The PW1/injured has sustained fractured injury and got admitted at Government Hospital for treatment. Thereafter, she was discharged from the Hospital on 06.03.2010. The Doctor, who has treated her, was examined as PW7 and the wound certificate given by him was marked as Ex.P4.

3. The trial Court on appreciating the evidence, let in by the prosecution through PW1 to PW9, Ex.P1 to Ex.P10 and M.O.1, held the accused guilty of offences under Section 326 IPC and convicted him to undergo sentences as stated above. Aggrieved by the said conviction and sentence, the petitioner has preferred an appeal before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Erode, in C.A.No.114 of 2016.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has contended that non-production of the X-ray, to prove this fractured injury, is fatal to the case of the prosecution and therefore, the accused ought not to have been convicted for the offences under Section 326 IPC. However, the trial Court considered the deposition of PW7/Doctor, who has given the wound certificate/Ex.P4, wherein he had explained that the X-ray was submitted to the Insurance Company to claim medical insurance and therefore the copy could not be produced before the Court. Since the Doctor, who has treated the patient, has opined that the injury was grievous in nature and also taking note of the fact that the injured was treated as in-patient for nearly 8 days for her fracture, the Court below has dismissed the appeal.

5. Aggrieved by the concurrent findings, the present revision is filed on the ground that the nature of the injury has not been proved by way of tangible evidence and explanation of PW7 for non-production of X-ray ought not to have been considered by the Courts below. Further it is also contended that the Courts below held the appellant guilty though the evidence of PW2, PW3, PW4, who have admitted the injured, have not seen the occurrence directly.

6. The learned Government Advocate (Criminal side) submits that the occurrence took place inside the house of the accused and the victim. None other were present at the time of occurrence. Injured witness has spoken about the nature of injury and the circumstances under which the injury was caused to her. The other prosecution witnesses PW2, PW3, PW4 and PW5 have rushed to the spot on hearing the scream of the injured and saw the injured with bleeding injury. The Doctor's evidence clearly indicates that the injury is grievous in nature and it has caused a fracture in the wrist of the victim/PW1. The learned Government Advocate further contended that in such circumstances, there is no error in the judgment of the Courts below to interfere in the revision.

7. This Court, on considering the rival submission and on perusing the evidence in the light of the judgment rendered by the Courts below, finds that since the medical evidences, scan and X-ray, establishes the fact that the victim/PW1 sustained fracture on her left wrist and she was treated by PW7, the non-production of the X-ray in this case will not be fatal to the case of the prosecution regarding the nature of the injury. When there is a possible explanation given by the prosecution for not producing the X-ray, the wound certificate, given by the Doctor who has treated the witnes