Case Note & Summary
The appeal arose from the conviction of the appellants, Hori Lal and Bisram, under Section 326 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) for causing grievous hurt to Jeet Bahadur. The incident occurred on March 29, 1965, when the appellants, armed with kantas, attacked Jeet Bahadur in his field. The victim sustained multiple injuries, including incised wounds that cut the underlying bones—specifically, the left humerus, radius, both bones of the left forearm, and the tibia shaft. The trial court convicted the appellants under Section 307/34 IPC, but the Allahabad High Court altered the conviction to Section 326/34 IPC, imposing five years' rigorous imprisonment. The appellants contended that the injuries did not constitute fractures and thus were not grievous, challenging the interpretation of 'fracture' under Section 320 IPC. They also questioned the admissibility of a deposition under Section 33 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, due to insufficient proof of the witness's death. The Supreme Court examined the medical evidence and the doctor's opinion that the injuries were grievous. It held that for an injury to be grievous under clause 7 of Section 320, a fracture does not require a complete cut through the bone; a break, splintering, rupture, or fissure suffices. The court found that the incised wounds, described as bone deep and cutting the underlying bones, clearly amounted to fractures. The court approved the High Court's view that the injuries, caused by dangerous weapons, justified conviction under Section 326 IPC. The appeal was dismissed, affirming the conviction and sentence. The court did not decide the issue of admissibility of the deposition under Section 33 as it was unnecessary given the credible eyewitness evidence.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Grievous Hurt - Meaning of Fracture under Section 320 IPC - Indian Penal Code, 1860, Sections 320, 326 - The court interpreted the term 'fracture' in clause 7 of Section 320 IPC, holding that a break by cutting or splintering of the bone, or a rupture or fissure, amounts to fracture; it is not necessary that the bone is cut through and through or that the crack extends from the outer to the inner surface, or that there is displacement of fragments. Injuries described as bone deep and cutting underlying bones were held to be fractures and thus grievous. Held that conviction under Section 326 IPC is justified as the injuries were caused by dangerous weapons. (Paras 14-17)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the injuries found on the victim constituted grievous hurt under Section 320 IPC, thereby justifying conviction under Section 326 IPC, particularly whether incised wounds that cut the underlying bone amount to fracture within the meaning of clause 7 of Section 320.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the conviction under Section 326 IPC. It held that a fracture includes any break, splintering, fissure, or rupture of the bone, not necessarily a complete cut through. Injuries described as bone deep and cutting the underlying bones were held to be fractures and thus grievous. The court also noted that the use of kantas (dangerous weapons) justified the conviction.
Law Points
- Legal points not extracted
- For an injury to be grievous under Section 320 IPC clause 7
- a fracture need not be a complete cut through the bone
- a break by cutting or splintering
- or a rupture or fissure in the bone amounts to fracture. Superficial cuts do not qualify. Injuries described as bone deep and cutting the underlying bone constitute fractures. The doctor's opinion that injuries are grievous is admissible and
- along with the nature of injuries
- can establish grievous hurt. Use of dangerous weapons justifies conviction under Section 326 IPC.
