SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

1976 Supreme(SC) 148

N.L.UNTWALIA, R.S.SARKARIA
Jayaraj – Appellant
Versus
State Of T. N. – Respondent


Advocates:
A.Subhashini, A.V.RANGAM, K.JAYRAMAN GOWDA, R.CHANDRASHEKHAR REDDY, T.S.KRISHNAMURTHY IYER

Judgement Key Points

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










































Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top