The judgment delineates the distinction between IPC Section 326 and Section 324, emphasizing the requirement of proving grievous hurt for conviction.

1. This is an appeal against conviction and sentence passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Beed in Sessions Case No. 69 of 2015 vide judgment and order dated 03.05.2019. Both the appellants have been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 324 and 326 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and 3 years respectively, besides direction to pay fine of Rs. 25,000/- and 10,000/- each respectively.

2. The record indicates that, along with the present appellants, three more persons were also prosecuted. They have been acquitted of the charge, but the State has not preferred any appeal against their acquittal.

3. As per the case of the prosecution, the incident took place on 19.01.2015. Rohidas (PW-1) was returning home from the field. At the entrance of the cattle shed, he saw both the appellants and one Bhau (acquitted co-accused) were assaulting Ramrao (PW-2). It is further in his evidence that they were beating Ramrao (PW-2) since he had no role to compromise the matter. His evidence would further indicate that appellant Dnyandeo was assaulting Ramrao (PW 2) by stick, while appellant Kisan was assaulting Ramrao (PW 2) with iron strip and Bhau (acquitted co-accused) assaulting Ramrao (PW 2) by stick. It is further in his evidence that he intervened in the quarrel. Both the appellants Dnyandeo and Kisan even beat him up on the ground as to why he was a witness in the earlier case. The other family members of the appellants had gathered on the spot. They also assaulted the wife of Rohidas (PW-1). It is further in his evidence that he fell unconscious. He was first rushed to the Civil Hospital and then shifted to City Care Hospital.

4. Ramrao (PW-2) gave his evidence on the line of the evidence given by Rohidas (PW-1). It is in his evidence that appellant Kisan assaulted on his head with iron strip. The witness showed the injury marks to the trial Court.

5. The injury certificates of both the appellants have been duly proved. Those find place at Exhibits 43 and 44. Exh. 70 is the certificate issued by the doctor who treated Ramrao (PW-2) in City Care Hospital. The medical papers on record indicate that Ramrao (PW-2) was the indoor patient for 21 days. He underwent operation and was in the Intensive Care Unit (I.C.U.) and on Ventilator as well. The head injury suffered by Ramrao (PW-2) has been described as grievous in nature. The C.T. scan report and other medical papers although not placed on record, there is no reason to doubt Ramrao (PW-2) to have suffered injury grievous in nature.

6. The question is as to whether the said act is an offence of voluntarily causing grievous hurt by dangerous weapon.

7. The learned APP would submit that, the said offence is punishable with imprisonment for life or with imprisonment for a term which may extend to 10 years. According to him, the sentence has to be in proportion with the offence committed. He relied on the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Jaswinder Singh (Dead) through Legal Representative v. Navjot Singh Sidhu and Others reported in 2022 DGLS (SC) 591. He then relied upon the judgment in Hori Lal v. State of Uttar Pradesh 1969 DGLS (SC) 323 wherein, it is observed that “It is contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that none of the injuries 2 to 6 which were inflicted on P.W. 2 discloses that there is a fracture or dislocation of any bone. These injuries, it is said, at the most show that the particular bones on which the injuries were inflicted were cut which however does not amount to a fracture. It is true that fracture has not been defined in the Penal Code. It is sometimes thought as in the case of Po Yi Maung v. Ma E Tin, AIR 193