# HORI LAL AND ANR v. STATE OF U.P

- **Citation:** [1970] 2 S.C.R. 237
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1969-09-08
- **Case number:** Criminal Appeal No. 70 of 1968
- **Bench:** S. M. Sikri, G. K. Mitter, P. Jaganmohan Reddy
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/hori-lal-and-anr-v-state-of-u-p-4798
- **Pages:** 6

## Headnote

c
D
E
F
G
H
Indian Penal Code, 1860 ( 45 of 1860), ss. j2Q and 326-Grievou~
injury-fi'ractire-Meahing of.
The 'appellants gave kanta blows resulting in a number of injuries to
a person.
Some of injuries were incised wounds, some contusions, and
some abrasions.
All the incised injuries except one showed that the
honF-s h"ld been cut. On the question whether the conviction of the appellants under s, 326, l.P .C. for grievous hurt was justified or not;
HELD : The conviction under s. 326 was fully justified.
In order to justify conviction under s. 326, the injuries must satisfy
the requirements of cl. 7 or cl. 8 of s. 320 of the Indian Penal Code,
otherwise they will be treated as simple injuries.
Clauses 7 and 8 of
. s. 320 l.P .C., provide that an injury could only be designated as grievous
if it is (1) a fracture or dislocation of a bone or tooth, or (2) any hurt
which endangers life or which cau.'jes the sufferer to be during the
space of twenty days in severe bodily pain, or unable to follow his
ordinary pursuits.
Fracture has not been defined in the Penal Code.
It is not necessary that a bone should be cut through and through or
that the crack must extend from the outer to the inner surface or that
there should be displacement of any fragment of the bone. If there is a
break by cutting or splintering of the bone or there is a rupture or
fissure in it, it would amount to a fracture within the meaning of cl. 7
of s. 320. What has to be seen is whether the cuts in the bones noticed
in the injury report are only superficial or do they effect a break in
them. [242 H; 243 D-F]
In the present case, some of the incised 1n1ur1es show that they
were . bone deep and were
described as
cutting the underlying bone,
which would show that they were fractures.
Apart from this the doctor
said that the injuries were grievous
These injuries were
inflicted · by
Kantas which are dangerous weapons.
Observations contra in Po Yi Maung v. Ma E Tin, A.I.R. (1937) Rang.
2.53 and Mutukdhar Singh v. Emperor, A.I.R.
(1942)
Pat. 376, disapproved.
CRIMINAL
APPELLATE
JURISDICTION : Criminal
Appeal
No. 70 of 1968.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated
October 6, 1967 of the Allahabad High Court, LucknoW Bench
in Criminal Appeal No. 164 of 1966.
.
R. K. Garg, S. C. Agarwal and Uma Dutta, for the appe!la~ts.
0. P. · Rana, for .the respondent.
238
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(1970] 2 S.C.R.
The Judgment of the Court was deliyered by
Jaganmohan Reddy, J.
This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment of the Allahabad High Court setting aside
the conviction of Hori Lal and Bisram under s. 307 read with
s. 34 of the I.P.C. and instead convicting them under s. 326 read
with s. 34 I.P.C. and sentencing each of them to rigorous imprisonment for 5 years.
The appellants who ar' the residents of Bhitwa Gadan Khera
are friends belonging to the same party. It was alleged that on
June 14, 1964 Bisram's cattle stray~d into the field and damaged
the crop of Deo Dutt who is the nephew of Sagar Singh and
Jeet Bahadur.
In respect of this damage Deo Dutt and his
aiartner Ram Bharose complained to Bisram who along with
some other persons went to the house of Deo Dutt and threatened
him and the members of his family including Jeet Bahadur and
Sagar Singh.
Thereupon Deo Dutt lodged a complaint in the
police station.
Because of this complaiut relations between the
parties became strained as a result of which the accused stopped
working for .Teet Bahadur and Sagar Singh and evm asked the
other members of his beradari to follow suit.
On March 29,
1965 at about 5.30 p.m. Jeet Rahadur P.W. 2 along with his
labourer Sri Pal deceased was reaping the harvest. The field
of Sagar Singh P.W. I is situate just adjacent to the field of Jeet
Bahadur with only a chak road between their fields.
It is the
prosecution case that on that day both the accused armed with
kantas went to the field of Jeet Bahadur and challenged him.
Immediately thereafter they began to deal ka

## Text

237
A
HORI LAL AND ANR.
v.
STATE OF U.P.
September 8, 1969
B
[S. M. SIKRI, G. K. MITTER AND P. JAGANMOHAN REDDY, JJ.]
c
D
E
F
G
H
Indian Penal Code, 1860 ( 45 of 1860), ss. j2Q and 326-Grievou~
injury-fi'ractire-Meahing of.
The 'appellants gave kanta blows resulting in a number of injuries to
a person.
Some of injuries were incised wounds, some contusions, and
some abrasions.
All the incised injuries except one showed that the
honF-s h"ld been cut. On the question whether the conviction of the appellants under s, 326, l.P .C. for grievous hurt was justified or not;
HELD : The conviction under s. 326 was fully justified.
In order to justify conviction under s. 326, the injuries must satisfy
the requirements of cl. 7 or cl. 8 of s. 320 of the Indian Penal Code,
otherwise they will be treated as simple injuries.
Clauses 7 and 8 of
. s. 320 l.P .C., provide that an injury could only be designated as grievous
if it is (1) a fracture or dislocation of a bone or tooth, or (2) any hurt
which endangers life or which cau.'jes the sufferer to be during the
space of twenty days in severe bodily pain, or unable to follow his
ordinary pursuits.
Fracture has not been defined in the Penal Code.
It is not necessary that a bone should be cut through and through or
that the crack must extend from the outer to the inner surface or that
there should be displacement of any fragment of the bone. If there is a
break by cutting or splintering of the bone or there is a rupture or
fissure in it, it would amount to a fracture within the meaning of cl. 7
of s. 320. What has to be seen is whether the cuts in the bones noticed
in the injury report are only superficial or do they effect a break in
them. [242 H; 243 D-F]
In the present case, some of the incised 1n1ur1es show that they
were . bone deep and were
described as
cutting the underlying bone,
which would show that they were fractures.
Apart from this the doctor
said that the injuries were grievous
These injuries were
inflicted · by
Kantas which are dangerous weapons.
Observations contra in Po Yi Maung v. Ma E Tin, A.I.R. (1937) Rang.
2.53 and Mutukdhar Singh v. Emperor, A.I.R.
(1942)
Pat. 376, disapproved.
CRIMINAL
APPELLATE
JURISDICTION : Criminal
Appeal
No. 70 of 1968.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated
October 6, 1967 of the Allahabad High Court, LucknoW Bench
in Criminal Appeal No. 164 of 1966.
.
R. K. Garg, S. C. Agarwal and Uma Dutta, for the appe!la~ts.
0. P. · Rana, for .the respondent.
238
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(1970] 2 S.C.R.
The Judgment of the Court was deliyered by
Jaganmohan Reddy, J.
This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment of the Allahabad High Court setting aside
the conviction of Hori Lal and Bisram under s. 307 read with
s. 34 of the I.P.C. and instead convicting them under s. 326 read
with s. 34 I.P.C. and sentencing each of them to rigorous imprisonment for 5 years.
The appellants who ar' the residents of Bhitwa Gadan Khera
are friends belonging to the same party. It was alleged that on
June 14, 1964 Bisram's cattle stray~d into the field and damaged
the crop of Deo Dutt who is the nephew of Sagar Singh and
Jeet Bahadur.
In respect of this damage Deo Dutt and his
aiartner Ram Bharose complained to Bisram who along with
some other persons went to the house of Deo Dutt and threatened
him and the members of his family including Jeet Bahadur and
Sagar Singh.
Thereupon Deo Dutt lodged a complaint in the
police station.
Because of this complaiut relations between the
parties became strained as a result of which the accused stopped
working for .Teet Bahadur and Sagar Singh and evm asked the
other members of his beradari to follow suit.
On March 29,
1965 at about 5.30 p.m. Jeet Rahadur P.W. 2 along with his
labourer Sri Pal deceased was reaping the harvest. The field
of Sagar Singh P.W. I is situate just adjacent to the field of Jeet
Bahadur with only a chak road between their fields.
It is the
prosecution case that on that day both the accused armed with
kantas went to the field of Jeet Bahadur and challenged him.
Immediately thereafter they began to deal kanta blows on Jeet
Bahadur.
Jeet Bahadur P.W. 2 cried out whereupon
Sagar
Singh P. W. 1 hearing the shouts rushed to his aid.
Maya Ram
P.W. 3 and Himachal and Ram Pal who were nearby also rushed
to the aid of Jeet Bahadur. Accused Bisram is said to have fired
a revolver at Sagar Singh but he did not receive any inquiry.
Thereafter the accused ran away towards the village.
As Jeet
Bahadur was injured, Sagar Singh P.W. 1 took him to the police
station and there lodged a report Ex. Ka-1 at about 9.55 p.m.
on March 29, 1965.
The investigation officer Bhanu Prakash
Sha1ma, P.W. 5 investigated tile crime, prepared
site
plan,
recorded statements of the witnesses and seized
blood stained
mud.
Jeet Bahadur was admitted to the District hospital at
Unnao.
Dr. Srivastava examined him on March '.lO,
J 965
at
8.30 a.m. and found as many as 10 injuries of which injuries 2 to
7 were incised wounds, injuries 1 and 9 contusions and injuries
8 and 10 abrasions.
All the incised injuries e::cept No. 7 showed
that the bones had been cut. These injuries are as follows :-
" 2. Incised wound "3" X l" X bone vertically on
the right half forehead just above the right eye brow.
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
,..,
,.._
I
l-
' I
I I
~-
~
I
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
HORI LAL v. STATE (P. J. Reddy, J.)
239·
3. Incised wound li" >< i·" X bone
cutting
the
underlying bone lower part left humerus just a~ove th~
left elbow on the back of left arm.
4. Incised wound obliquely 5" X 2" X bone cutting
the underlying radius and above left in the middle of
the left forearm back.
5. Incised wound 5" X / l" X bone on the back of
the left forearm lower I/3rd. Slightly obliquely cutting
both the bon~s of left forearm.
6. Incised wound 4l"X l" bone on the
left
leg
middle back and laterally cutting tl)e underlying tibia
bone shaft."
......
The ddencc l>f· th.e accused is that they had
been
falsely
implicated.
The prosecutipn examined
Sagar Singh_ P.W.
1,
Jeet Bahadur P.W. 2 and Maya Ram P.W. 3 ~s eye witnesses and
since Sri Pa! one of the eye witnesses died after his evidence was
recorded by the
committing ·,)rngistrate,
his
deposition
was
admitted and treated as evidence under s. 33 of-{he-·EQidence
Act (Ex. Ka-11).
The learned Sessions Judge believed the eye
witnesses and relying upon Ex. Ka-3 convicted the accused under
s. 307 read with s. 34.
The learned Judge however acquitted
them of the second charge of attempting to n,urder P.W. 1 with
pistol.
In this appeal Mr. S. C. Agarwala learned counsel for _the
appellants contends firstly. that the injuries as found by the doctor
do not justify the conviction of the appellants of grievous hurt
inasmuch as there is no evidence that any of the bones was
fractured or thaL the injured person was disabled for 20 days
or more; secpndly, that the confusions found on P.W. 2 would
clearly belie the evidence of the eye witnesses that the injuries
were inflicted by a kanta, and thirdly, that the
deposition of
Sri Pal ought not to have been admitted in evidence under s. 33
because the death of Sri Pal has not been strictly proved.
The main question which requires to be determined in this
case is whether there is sufficient evidence to establish that the
appellant had caused the injurjes found on P. W. 2, and if so~
having regard . to the! injuries what is the offence
which
the
appellants have committed.
It appears to us
that
there is
sufficient credible evidence. cif the eye witnesses to prove beyond
doubt that the appellants had caused injuries to P.W. 2.
Even
if the evidence of P.W. 1 and P.W. 2 who are brothers. of whom
P.W. 2 is the victim, is for the moment not considered, there is·
no reason why the evidence of P. W. 3 Maya Ram oqght not
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[ 1970] 2 S.C.R.
to be relied upon.
Accordiiog to Maya Ram, ho was
in
the
Ka!lian when he heard the cries of ket Bahadur and rushed.
He
says, ··it was the time of about 5 or
~.30 p.m.
1. heard
""
alarm raised in the field of Jcet BahaJur.
I and Hrn1achal rnn
to that side.
R~un Pal \VHS c01ning up running fro111 the
wc:-,;.;,:rn
side.
Jn the field of Je~t Bahadur, I ~aw Bisram and Hori L.il
accu::.ed p1esent in court b.~atin.g .feet Bahadue vtith kantus.
'..'··:
raised alarn1.
After assaulting Ject Bahadur 1-lori L.ai and Bi~r•U1i
accused
\Vent
a\vay
to\\·ards
the
cast.
Sagar
Singh
\\·~1~
co111in2 up runnin~ fron1 his chak.
Sagar
Singh
\Vas
ra1:;1ng
alann: · Bisrun1 accused fired the pblol at Sa1£:1r Singh. but Sagar
did not sustain nny injury.
I sa\v
injuri~-:. on th~ body of Ject
'-...Balladur.
After it we too)' Jeet Bahadur to Hasanganj on a cn1:·
The \vitness \Vas cross-exa111inrd at \.:n!2lh hut no,vhcrc ha ...
1l
been suggested that he is an intcrc~t1.:d \Vitness or he is spcnkin:;
untruth."~ Both the Sessions Court '" well as the High C."<.;un
relied upon his evidence which according to thc111 fully corrohorated the evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 2.
The 'fact that some contusion'
and abr~lsions were found bn P.W. 2 dOcs not i1npair the cvidcnt.·c
of these witnesses because the doctor was ;iot asked whcl her
the injuries \Vere possible if ku1lta.....biov.·s anJ given.
1t is qui!~
possible to find contusions \Vhere t\vo'"j)crsons arc giving blo\,-~
with kantas which have also blunt asides.
Llnless definite su:c·
gcstions are made and the impossibility of finding
any
such
injuries with
k1111ta
blows
is
elicited.
we
will
not
be
justified merely on a submission from the har tO accept
it
and
discard
the evidence of the
e¥e witnesses.
We.
th~rdore, find no valid reason in not "ccepting the con·
current findings of both ·the courts that the appellants had
caused injuries to P.W. 2 as spoken to by
the
witnesses.
In
these circu111stancc~~, it is unnecessary for us to express any vie'".
on the question whether the evidence of the investigating o!liccr
Bhanu Prakash Sharma that 'it has been learnt' that Sri Pal ha'
died' is sufficient to prove the. death of Sri Pal in order to adm ir
the deposition of Sri Pal in the Committal Court under s. 33 of
the Evidence Act.
It now remains to consider whether the conviction of the
appellants under s. 326 for grievous hurt is justified.
The answer
to this question would depend on the nature
of
the
injurie>
which have· been found on P.W. 2, namely, whether
they
arc
simple or grievous.
In order to justify conviction under s. 326.
injuries on P.W. 2 must satisfy the rcq_uirements of cl. 7 or c( ~
of s .. 320 of ~he. Indian Panel Code. otherwise they will be treated
as s1mpl? .minnes.
Clauses 7 ,a~d 8 of s. 320 I.P.C. provid~
that an miury. could. only be, designated as grievous if it is (J)
a fracture or d1slocat1on of a bone or tooth, or (2) any hurt which
A
B
c
D
E
..,
F
G
H
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
HORI LAL l'. STATE (P. J. Reddy, J.)
241
endangers life or which cause" the sufferer to be .during the
space of twenty days in sen~re bodily pain, or unable to follow
his ordinary pursuits.
It is contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that
none of the injuries 2 to 6 which were inflicted on P.W. 2 dis'
doses that there is a fracture or dislocation of any bone.
These
injuries, it is said. at :he most show that the particular bones on
11hich
the
infuries
were
inflicted
were
cut
which
howewr docs
not
amount
to
a
fracture.
It
1s
true
that
tracture has not been defined in the penal code. It is ,,omcti1nes
tnought as in the case of Po Yi Maung v.
Ma E Tin(')
that
the meaning of the word fracture would imply that there ,;houl,d
be a break m the bone and that in the ccrse of a sku\l bone it is
not merely sufticient that there is a crack but that the crack must
c.\tcnd from the outer surface cf the skull to the inter surfoce.
In i1!11111kdlwr Singh v. Emperor(') it was observed that if the
c1·idence is merely that a bone has been cut and there is nothing
"hatever to indicate the txtent of the cut, whether a deep one
<'I' a mere scratch on the surface ol the bone, it will be difticult ,
to infer that the injury is a grievous hurt within
the
meaning
of s. 320 of the Panel Code.
Jn our view, both these zcssumptions are misleading.
It is not necessary that a bone should be
cut through and through or that the crack must extend from the
rrnter to the inner surface or that there should be displacement
t1f any fragment of the bone. If there is a break by cutting or
;plintering of the bone or there is a rupture or fissure in it,
it would amourit to a fracture within the meaning of cl. 7 of
s. 320.
What we have to sec is whether the cuts in the bones
noticed in the injuty report are only superficial or do they effect
a break in them.
The nature of the injuries as spoken to by the
doctor in his evidence, discloses the length, breaJth and depth
of each injury.
So far as the depth of the injuries
Nos. 3. 4,
5 and 6 is concerned, each one of the iniuries shows that it is
bone deep and they are described as cutting the underlying bone.
In injury 3 left humerus, in injury 4 radius, in injury 5 both
tl1e bones of the left forearm and in injury 6 the tibia bone shaft
Juve been cut which would show that they are fractures.
Apart
from this the doctor as noticed earlier has in his evidence said
that these injuri"s are grievous. It is contended that the doctor
has not disclosed the reason why he
thinks
that the injuries
were grievous.
But in our view the doctor would not be unaware of what injuries are grievous or what are> simple.
At any
rate, the nature of the injuries considered with the evidence of
the doctor would undoubtedly· establish that all
the
aforesaid'
rt) A.l.R. (1937) Rang 253.
(2) A .1.R. (t 942) Pal. 37~.
242
SUPREME COU~T REPORTS
[1970] 2 SCR.
miunes were grievous.
These injuries wert inflicted by km11a1
A
which are dangerous weapons and hence the conviction under
s. 326 is fully justified.
The appeaUails and it is dismissed.
Y.P.
Appeal dis111i.1.1ci!.