Arnolis Appuhamy V. Mahil

1948     Present: Basnayake J.

ARNOLIS APPUHAMY et al, Appellants, and MAHIL
(S. I., POLICE, KOSGAMA), Respondent

S. C. 1,102-1,103-M. C. Avissawella, 41,317

Penal Code-Fracture of bone-Crack not extending right through-Grievous hurt-Section 311.

In order to constitute grievous hurt within the meaning of section 311 of the Penal Code it is not necessary for the fracture of a bone that the crack or break should extend right through it.

Inspector of Police v. Pedrick (1944) 45 N. L. R. 62, not followed.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Magistrate, Avissawella.

Stanley de Zoysa, for accused, appellants.

R. A. Kannangara, Crown Counsel, for the Attorney-General.

Cur. adv. vult.

December 21, 1948. BASNAYAKE J.-

The learned counsel for the appellants does not canvass the findings of fact, but he submits that the conviction of the first appellant of the offence of causing grievous hurt on grave and sudden provocation is bad in law as the hurt caused by him is not any one of the kinds of hurt enumerated in section 311 of the Penal Code and is therefore not grievous hurt.

The injury in question is thus described by Dr. Tissaweerasinghe : " Linear lacerated wound 1" long x scalp-deep over right side of back of head with linear fracture of bone underneath ". In cross-examination he states: "I cannot say whether the fracture extended to the inner table It is submitted on the authority of the case of Inspector of Police v. Pedrick 1[(1944) 45 N. L. R. 62 ; 26 C. L. W. 96.] that as there is no proof that the crack in the bone underneath the scalp extended to the inner table there has been no fracture of a bone within the meaning of that expression in Seventhly of section 311. In the Rangoon case which is followed in the case relied on by counsel, Spargo J. does not give the reason for his statement " that if it is a crack it must be a crack which extends from the outer surface of the skull to the inner surface ". I have great difficulty in accepting his statement as I find myself unable to reconcile it with the meaning of the word " fracture in medico-legal parlance. It is permissible according to the rules of interpretation of statutes to resort to technical works to ascertain the meaning of technical expressions 2[In re Castioni (1891) 1 Q. B. 149. Law Journal Volume LXXIX., page 268, 20.4.31. Dwarris on Statutes, 2nd Edn., p. 578.] because when the Legislature uses technical language in its statutes, it is supposed to attach to it its technical

meaning unless the contrary manifestly appears 1[Burton v. Reevell, 16 M. & W. 309, per Parke, B.]. For that reason I turn for assistance to the Dictionary of Medico-Legal Terms (Crew & Gibson) where the word '' fracture '' is defined as " a crack or break in a bone ". " There are several types-

" (1) Simple, one in which the periosteum-the covering of the bone- is intact, or in which there is little or no surrounding damage.

(2) Comminuted, the bone is broken into several pieces.

(3) Impacted, the ends of the bone are dovetailed and held in position.

(4) Green stick, one side of the bone is cracked and the other bent

Click Here to Read the rest of this document