Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
N.L.Untwalia : R.S.Sarkaria
Jayaraj
Versus
State Of Tamil Nadu
Case No. : 101 of 1973
Date of Decision : 3/30/76
Advocates Appeared: Chandrashekhar R. : Iyer T.S.Krishnamurthy : Jayaram K. : Rangam A.V. : Subhashini A.
Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 147, 148, 299, 300, 302, 304, 307 and 323 – Murder – Death - Appellant Al and six others were tried by sessions judge for causing death and attempting murder - In addition A2 to A7 were charged and Al - Trial Judge acquitted all accused of all charges framed against them - On appeal by state high court set aside acquittal of A1 and convicted him for murder and sentenced him to imprisonment for life - High court maintained acquittal of A2 and A3 on murder charge but convicted each of two former for causing simple hurt to deceased and latter for causing simple hurt to public witness 3 and sentenced each of them to pay a fine or in default to undergo one month further rigorous imprisonment - Acquittal of A4 to A7 on all charges was upheld - Held, In case before us fourth element has not been objectively and clearly established - Although in examination-in-chief who conducted autopsy stated that external injury on abdomen which was linked with internal grievous injury was necessarily fatal yet in cross-examination he stated in unmistakable terms that this abdominal injury found on deceased was only likely to cause death - No attempt was made in re-examination to get this apparent conflict reconciled - As a matter of fact it was incumbent on prosecution to question medical witness specifically as to whether all or any of injuries found on deceased was sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature but this was not done - Again this opinion of tie doctor was to be appraised in light of circumstance that death occurred nine or ten days after receipt of injury and during this period he had been operated upon in hospital - There is therefore no escape from conclusion that prosecution laid failed to prove beyond all manner of doubt that this injury on abdomen of deceased was sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature - Appeal is allowed.
Loosening of a tooth can be considered an injury that may fall under the category of bodily harm depending on its severity and the circumstances under which it occurred. If the loosening is minor and does not cause significant pain, disfigurement, or impairment, it might be classified as a simple hurt or minor injury. However, if the loosening results in considerable pain, disfigurement, or impairs the victim’s ability to function, it could potentially be classified as grievous hurt.
The assessment of whether loosening of a tooth amounts to grievous hurt depends on medical evidence regarding the extent of the injury and its impact on the victim’s health. The intent behind causing the injury and the manner in which it was inflicted are also relevant factors in determining the classification under relevant legal provisions.
In legal terms, the injury’s severity, the permanence of damage, and the circumstances of the act are critical considerations. If the injury is substantial and causes long-term or permanent disfigurement or impairment, it is more likely to be regarded as grievous hurt. Conversely, minor loosening that heals without lasting effects may be viewed as a simple hurt or minor injury.
SARKARIA, J.
(1) JAYARAJ, appellant (A-l), and six others (to be hereinafter called A-2, A-3, A-4, A-5, A-6 and A-7) were tried by the Sessions Judge, Tirunelveli for causing the death of Pattu Nadar and attempting the murder of Cruz Manickam. In addition, A-2 to A-7 were charged under S. 147 and A-l under S. 148, Penal Code. The trial Judge, acquitted all the accused of all the charges framed against them.
(2) ON appeal by the State, the High court of Madras, set aside the acquittal of A-1 and convicted him under S. 302, Penal Code for the murder of Pattu Nadar and sentenced him to imprisonment for life. The High court maintained the acquittal of A-2 and A-3 on the murder charge but convicted each of the two under S. 323, Penal Code, the former for causing simple hurt to the deceased and the latter for causing simple hurt to Public Witness 3, and sentenced each of them to pay a fine of Rs. 50.00 or, in default to undergo one months further rigorous imprisonment. The acquittal of A-4 to A-7 on all the charges was upheld.
(3) HENCE this appeal by A-1.
(4) THE occurrence in which Public Witness 3 received injuries and Pattu Nadar was fatally hurt took place on 28/02/1971 at 2.30 p.m. in a busy locality of Tuticorin town. The deceased and the eyewitnesses belonged to the DMK party, while the accused were workers of the Congress (Organization). There was political rivalry between the two parties. It was the eve of the general elections to the State Assembly. Election fever was raging and the workers of these rival parties were busy canvassing for their respective candidates who were contesting from this constituency. At about 2.30 p.m., p.m 3 and the deceased were standing on Davispuram Road in front of the office of the DMK. party, and were conversing with each other. This road runs from north to south. All the seven accused came there armed, in a body. A-1 had a bichchua (a dagger-like knife), while his companions were carrying sticks. A-1 exhorted his own companions to aisault Public Witness 3. Thereupon, A-3 and A-5 gave stick blows to Public Witness 3 felling him to the ground. The deceased ran towards the south and then turned east into Rama Nadar Villai Street. A-1, A-2 and A-4 chased him, followed by the rest of the accused. A-1, A-2 and A-4 overtook the deceased. A-1 then stabbed Pattu Nadar with the bichchua in the abdomen. As a result, the liver, stomach and mesentery of the victim were injured and his intestines came out. Simultaneously, A-2 and A-4 gave stick blows on his head. PWs 1, 9 and 10 witnessed this occurrence. They raised an alarm whereupon the assailants ran away towards the east taking their weapons with them. Public Witness 8 and one Shanmuga Nadar, immediately lifted the injured, removed him into the adjacent compound of Public Witness 10, pushed his intestines back into the wound and bandaged it while the injured was leaning against a drumstick tree standing there. Pattu Nadar and Public Witness 3 both were then put in a taxicab and taken to the local Civil Hospital, about 10 miles away. On the other hand, Public Witness 1 went straight from the. spot to the police station, two furlongs away, and lodged the first information, Ex. P-1, at 2.50 p.m. On the basis of this report, the Police Inspector (Public Witness 14) registered a case regarding an offence under S. 307, Penal Code.
(5) IN the hospital. Dr. Sankara Pandian (Public Witness 6) examined Pattu Nadar at 3 p.m.,and Public Witness 3 at 3.15 p.m. Thereafter, at 3.30 p.m. he sent the note. Ex. P-3, to the local magistrate (Public Witness 5) requesting the latter to come over to the hospital to record the statements of the injured persons. In response to that note) the magistrate went to the hospital and recorded the statement Ex. P-4 of Pattu Nadar after the medical officer had certified that the deponent was fit enough to make a statement. In Ex. P-4, the deponent denounced Jay araj, appellant as t
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
