Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

(P. W. 1) Taladhar Yadav, (P. W. 2) Bishundeo Singh, (P. W. 3) Chandeshwari Singh. P. W. 1 was turned hostile and P. Ws. 2 and 3 were tendered. P. W. 4 is the informant and P. W. 5 is the wife of the informant. However, they came to support the prosecution case in the fardbeyan about the loan given by the informant and for demand there was verbal altercation followed with assault causing injury on his head and hand and also injury on Bina Devi. P. W. 5 also supported the prosecution case. P. W. 6 is the doctor who examined the injured P. Ws. 4 and 5. The doctor found injury on the person of Bina Devi one sharp cutting weapon wound over anterior part on the head measuring about 2-1/2"x1/4"x1/4" and the injury found grievous in nature caused by Garasa. P. W. 6 also examined Rajeshwari Prasad Yadav and found seven injuries. Injury nos. (i) one sharp cutting weapon wound over the head extending from anterior to the back of the head measuring about 2"x1/4"x1/4" (ii) one sharp cutting weapon wound over left side of the anterior part of head measuring about 2"x1/4"x1/4" (iii) one swelling over lower cervical vertebra (iv) right hand partially paralyzed (v) left hand partially paralyzed (vi) right leg partially paralyzed and (vii) left leg partially paralyzed and has opined that the injury nos. I and II are grievous in nature caused by sharp cutting weapon and injury no. III caused by hard and blunt substance and has stated that injury nos. IV to VII partially paralysis developed due to head and vertebral injuries.

8. It has further been contended that the occurrence is dated 02.07.1993 whereas the First Information Report lodged on 04.07.1993. On the basis of the fardbeyan recorded by the I.O. on 04.07.1993, the doctor has given the injury report on 02.07.1993 and has mentioned in the injury report the date of discharge as 16.07.1993 and on that basis contended that the injury report is anti dated and is not believable. It has further been contended that the injuries pointed out are not as such to have been caused with intention to kill as none of the injury can be said to be dangerous to life nor they confirmed to the definition of the injury as per Section 320 of the Indian Penal Code to bring it under the definition of grievous injury as the injury about partial paralysis is vague without any supporting documentary evidence.

11 However, with regard to the injury on the person of Rajeshwari Yadav is concerned, the injury nos. I and VII have been stated to be grievous in nature. However, the injury nos. I and II there is no mention about the cutting or dislocation of the bone and hence the injury nos. 1 and 2 cannot be said to be grievous. However, the injury nos. III is one swelling over lower cervical vertebra but there is no mention about the size of the swelling and hence the injury nos. I, II and III cannot be said to be come under the definition of Section 320 of the Indian Penal Code because these injuries neither indicates any dislocation of any of the joint or to bring it under Section 320 of the Indian Penal Code. However, with regard to the injury nos. IV to VII which have been mentioned about partially paralyzed. However, there is no mention about the extent of paralysis or whether the said deprivation or paralysis is not supported by any scientific investigation. It has been opined by the doctor that it may be due to injury on head and cervical vertebra but that opinion has not been confirmed. However, there is long distance between may be proved and must be proved and this distance is required to be traveled by cogent, reliable and unimpeachable evidence. However, nothing has been brought on record to connect deprivation of partially paralysis was the real cause of assault. Hence, report of the doctor is not supported by the scientific examination.

12. However, P. W. 4 the inured has come to depose in the case and in his entire evidence neither he has deposed about any partially paralysis nor he has shown anything to suggest that he was really suffering from any paralysis or partially paralysis with regard to the occurrence and hence there is no confirmatory evidence regarding these injuries and hence it is not safe to hold that the injury inflicted was grievous in nature.

13. However, taking into consideration the entire injuries on the person of Bina Devi and Rajeshwari Yadav are concerned, even taking into consideration the injuries either signally or even the cumulative effect, all the injuries taken together, it cannot be said that the injury was inflicted with intention to kill to attract Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code and hence, the offence under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code is not made out nor the injury confirmed to Section 320 of the Indian Penal Code to bring it under the definition of grievous hurt to convert under Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code or Section 325 of the Indian Penal Code and hence the conviction under Sections 307 and 326 is hereby set aside and is substituted by the offence under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code.