HORI LAL AND ANR. versus STATE OF U.P.

Citation: [1970] 2 S.C.R. 237 · Decided: 08-09-1969 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.M. SIKRI · Disposal: Dismissed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

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 appel-
lants 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, dis-
approved. 
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 direct-
ed 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 impri-
sonment 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 revolve
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.