Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

10- Similarly, Shri Amitabh Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioners, further argued that with reference to Question No.55, the correct answer would be Option No.3 i.e... „simple hurt by sharp cutting object‟. Learned counsel invited out attention to the definition of „grievous hurt‟ as defined in Section 320 of the Indian Penal Code, and the explanation Sixthly thereto, to say that to constitute a „grievous hurt‟ the injury should cause „permanent disfiguration of the head or face‟. It is stated that in this case the injury is a „simple hurt by a sharp edged weapon‟ and merely if there is a scar on the face it cannot be termed as „disfiguration‟. According to learned counsel, „disfiguration‟ means something which happens to the face whereby the entire complexion and look of the face changes. By contending that a scar on the face would not amount to „permanent disfiguration‟, learned counsel argues that the option submitted by the petitioners are correct and in support thereof invites our attention to a judgment of the Kerala High Court, in the case of Mathu Paily Vs. State of Kerala, 1962 (1) CrLJ 652. Learned Writ Petition Nos:: 1281/2016 & 1224/2016.

14- With regard to Question No.55, Shri Khalid Noor Fakhruddin invited out attention to the provisions of Section 320 of the Indian Penal Code, and the implication of the Explanation - Sixthly thereto, particularly with reference to the words „permanent disfiguration of the head or the face‟ as provided in the definition. Learned counsel Writ Petition Nos:: 1281/2016 & 1224/2016.

further referred to the question and argued that if the wordings of the question are taken note of, it would be clearly seen that the question speaks about the injury being inflicted by a blade on the face of the victim leaving a „permanent scar‟ on the face of the victim. The words „permanent scar‟ used in the question is indicative of the fact that it is a permanent mark in the form of a „scar‟ in the face, which amounts to „permanent disfiguration‟ and, therefore, it is a „grievous hurt caused by a cutting object i.e.... a blade‟, and the correct answer is Option No.1 and not Option No.3, as canvassed by the petitioners. 15- Shri Fakhruddin, learned counsel for the respondents, in this regard invites our attention to a judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Alister Anthony Pareira Vs. State of Maharashtra, AIR 2012 SC 3802, and the principle laid down therein to say that when a „permanent scar‟ is made on the face of the victim, it is not a „simple injury‟, but would be covered by the definition of „grievous injury‟, as defined under section 320 IPC. Learned counsel took us through the observations made by the Supreme Court in paragraphs 66 and 67, of this judgment, to buttress his contention.

"disfigure - v.tr. spoil the beauty of; deform; deface. Disfigurement n. [ME f. of des-figurer f. Rmc (as DIS-, FIGURE)]."

Any deformation or defacement would amount to disfiguration and when a „permanent scar‟ is caused on the face by a person, it is nothing but „disfiguration‟.

Similarly, a „scar‟ is defined in the Dictionary in the following terms:-

"scar - n & v. 1 - A usu. permanent mark on the skin left after the healing of a wound, burn, or sore. 2 - the lasting effect of grief etc. on a person‟s character or disposition. 3 - a mark left by damage etc (the table bore many scars). 4 - a mark left on the stem etc of a plant by the fall of a leaf etc.

-v (scarred, scarring). 1 tr. (esp. as scarred adj.) mark with a scar or scars (was scarred for life). 2 intr. heal over; form of a scar. 3 tr. form a scar on. - scarless adj. [ME f. OF eschar(r)e f. LL eschara f. Gl eskhara scab]."

Writ Petition Nos:: 1281/2016 & 1224/2016.

20- We further find much substance in the contentions advanced by the respondents to say that the examination was a preliminary examination based on objective type questions and the candidate was required to give specific reply based on the option and as far as the present two questions are concerned, they were based on the statutory definition of a particular provision, and when based on the definition a specific answer was available in the options provided that could only be the correct answer and if an option just to create confusion and to test the competence of the candidate in the backdrop of his legal acumen pertaining to the definition is asked, the option which is not the correct one with specific reference to the definition cannot be treated as the correct one. In the present case, the options given were deliberately incorporated by the Expert Examiner‟s to somehow create confusion for the purpose of testing the legal aptitude and acumen of the candidate. The wisdom of the experts, the purpose and the justification given by the respondents for the impugned action when found to be reasonable and based on proper consideration of various factors relevant to the issue in hand cannot be reassessed by this Court exercising power akin to that of an appellate authority nor can this Court sit over the decision of the experts once the same is found to be proper and in accordance to law. 21- In that view of the above, we are of the considered opinion that with regard to Question No.55 the correct answer would be „grievous hurt‟ and the contention of the petitioners cannot be accepted. 22- It may also be taken note of that after the model answers were published, objections were called for from various candidates. The objections were placed before a High Power Committee of the High Court and based on the opinion of the High Power Committee, a final decision was taken. Objections were received with regard to both these questions also and the records produced by the respondents indicate that the High Power Committee examined the matter in detail and rejected the objections. Once a High Power Committee has also examined the matter in detail, and for the reasons as are indicated by the respondents in the return, which is also considered by us, when the matter is rejected, Writ Petition Nos:: 1281/2016 & 1224/2016.