CRL RC/1709/2022 of PRAKASH Vs THE STATE REP BY on 22 September 2026

ORDER

The revision challenges the judgment dated 09.02.2022 passed by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Salem, in CA.No.70 of 2021 confirming the

CRL RC No. 1709 of 2022

Judgment in CC.No.503 of 2019 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.IV, Salem, dated 29.09.2021 holding the petitioner guilty of the offence under Section 326 of IPC and sentencing the petitioner to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default, to undergo one month simple imprisonment.

2. It is the case of the prosecution that on 16.11.2017 at about 7.30 p.m., while the accused were making arrangements to put up a compound wall in a common pathway, the defacto complainant attempted to prevent the same; and that the accused thereafter abused the defacto complainant in filthy language and stabbed his stomach with knife and caused grievous injury.

3. On the complaint given by the victim a case was registered and after investigation final report was filed. The prosecution examined 11 witnesses and marked 15 documents. The trial Court found that the prosecution had not proved the offences under Sections 294(b) and 506(ii) of IPC and convicted the petitioner under Section 326 of IPC and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default, to undergo one month simple imprisonment. The appellate Court confirmed the findings of guilt and sentence passed by the trial Court.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has

CRL RC No. 1709 of 2022

been falsely implicated; that independent witnesses turned hostile; that there is no evidence to show that the petitioner had attacked the victim; that the recovery of the knife is doubtful and that in the accident register, there is no reference to the injury by knife and that in any case injury sustained by the victim is not grievous.

5. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that P.W.1 is the injured witness. He has not been discredited in any manner. The injury sustained by the victim has been proved by examining the Doctors P.W.9 and P.W.10 and that therefore, there is no reason to interfere with the concurrent findings of the Courts below.

6. P.W.1 had deposed that he was attacked by the petitioner with a knife. There is no reason to disbelieve P.W.1. P.W.2 eye witness had corroborated the evidence of P.W.1. The Doctors P.W.9 and P.W.10 confirmed that the victim had sustained injury in the stomach. P.W.10 would state that the victim sustained a stab wound measuring 3X1X1 cm over the stomach. He had opined that the injury was grievous in nature. Therefore this Court is of the view that the fact that the victim sustained a stab wound in the stomach which was caused by the petitioner has been established beyond doubt by the prosecution.

7. The question is whether the prosecution has established that the hurt

CRL RC No. 1709 of 2022

caused was grievous. Though the Doctor had certified that the injury is grievous, it is well settled that in order to hold that the hurt is grievous in legal parlance in terms of Section 320 of IPC, the injury must fall under one of the clauses in the said provision.

8. This Court in Mariappan Vs. State [Crl.R.C.No.176 of 2011 dated 25.10.2016] held as follows: “18. 'Hurt' is commonly known as 'simple hurt/injury'. It is punishable under section 323 I.P.C. However, when the said hurt was caused by a dangerous weapon or means then it is punishable under section 324 I.P.C. and if the hurt is grievous as defined in Section 320 I.P.C. then it is punishable under section 325 I.P.C. When such 'grievous' hurt has been caused by a dangerous weapon further higher punishment is provided in section 326 I.P.C.

19. From the above, what emerges is that whether the injury/hurt is 'simple' or 'grievous' does not depends on the Doctor's evidence, medical opinion. But it is based on the nature of the injury, as given in section 319, 320 I.P.C., as the case may be. However, in this respect, medical evidence assists the Court to classify the injury. Thus, nature of injury in the legal sense and the nature of the injury in the medical sense are different. What the Court has to do in a hurt case is to

CRL RC No. 1709 of 2022

classify the hurt as simple or grievous as defined in section 319 or in Section 320 I.P.C.”

9. There is no evidence adduced by the prosecution to prove that the hurt caused by the petitioner is grievous within the meaning of Section 320 of IPC. Therefore this Court is of the view that the petitioner is only guilty of offence under Section 324 of IPC.

10. It is reported that the petitioner was in prison for a period of 15 days. In the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the view that the interest of justice would be met if the petitioner is sentenced to imprisonment of period already undergone and he is directed to pay compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- [Rupees One Lakh Only] to P.W.1, within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, and in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of three months.

11. With the above observation, the revision is disposed of. 22-09-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No pri

CRL RC No. 1709 of 2022

SUNDER MOHAN, J. pri To

1. The Principal Sessions Judge, Salem.

2. The Judicial Magistrate No.IV, Salem.

3. The Veeranam Police Station, Salem District. Crime No.70 of 2021. CRL RC No. 1709 of 2022 22-09-2026