1. The Petitioners were convicted by the learned Trial Court under Section 326 and 148 of IPC. In Appeal, the said conviction was confirmed. Hence, this Criminal Revision Case.

2. Learned counsel for the Petitioners submits that the impugned order of conviction passed by learned Trial Court, confirmed by the learned Appellate Court is illegal. He further submits that the prosecution has miserably failed to bring home the charge against the present Petitioner under Section 326 of IPC. He further submits that though the Doctor was deposed as PW-4, but X-Ray film was not marked as exhibit. Thus, the conviction under Section 326 of IPC is bad in law. Learned counsel for the Petitioners further argued that the alleged incident happened in the year 2005, so more than 20 years have already been elapsed and some of the Petitioners being old aged persons deserves leniency.

3. The only point of law to be decided by this Court, whether conviction under Section 326 of IPC is justifiable in the present facts and circumstances of the case. To understand the merit of this matter, the injury sustained by the injured as noted by PW-5 are as follows:-

                  (i) Laceration and fracture deformity of the left upper arm 6 x 3 cms, muscle deep;

                  (ii) Fracture deformity and laceration of the right upper arm 5 x 3 cms, muscle deep with bleeding;

                  (iii) Laceration of right leg with bone deep 4 x 3 cms, with bleeding.

                  (iv) Laceration of the left leg 5 x 3 cms, bone deep with bleeding.

                  X- Ray film take on 06.08.205 reflected four bone fractures as follows:-

                  (i) Fracture of the both bones of right forearm;

                  (ii) Fracture of the both bones of left forearm;

                  (iii) Fracture of fibula of right leg; and

                  (iv) Fracture of lower end of femur and upper end of Tibia of left leg.

4. The X-Ray films were produced during examination of PW-5, who gave his opinion on the basis of the X-Ray films, but Radiologist who has conducted X-Ray over victim, was not examined.

5. Learned counsel for the Petitioners submits that according to the observations of the Hon’ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana in “State of Punjab v. Manga Singh”( 1992 LawSuit (P&H) 873). X-Ray report or the evidence of Radiologist is must to prove the offence punishable under Section 326 of IPC. Learned counsel for the Petitioners also relied upon a decision of a coordinate bench of this Court in “Vunnam Babu v. State of Andhra Pradesh” (Criminal Revision Case No.2658 of 2017, dated 16.06.2025), wherein coordinate bench of this Court after deciding several observations of the Hon’ble Apex Court has converted the offence punishable under Section 326 of IPC to Section 324 of IPC.

6. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submits that learned Appellate Court as well as learned Trial Court has correctly recorded an order of conviction against the Petitioners. He further submits that the ingredients of Section 326 of IPC has been justified and established. The Accused persons have jointly taken a plan to assault the victim. By the assault, the victim sustained severe injuries over his body, who was admitted into hospital and was treated there more than four days. The injuries sustained by the victim were justifiably and located by doctor/ PW-5, who gave opinion that the injuries are grievious in nature. He further argued that the present Petitioners have formed an unlawful assembly only for the purpose of causing hurt to the victim. It is further argued that the PW-1 has successfully supported the prosecution case and the prosecution has brought home the charge against the Accused persons beyond all reasonable doubt. There is no merit in the instant Criminal Revision Case.

7. Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties. I perused the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court and also decision of Hon’ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana in Manga Singh’s case (supra). In the cited case, the victim sustained injury of 8’ cm x 3’ cm into bone deep on left shoulder injury. The High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jodhpur in “Ishtiyaq Ahmed v. State of Rajasthan and Others”( S.B.Criminal Revision Petition No.375 of 2025, dated 08.09.2025), the injury sustained by the victim is over his head by using lothi. The offence punishable under Section 326 of IPC is the punishment for causing voluntary grievous hurt. The definition of grievous hurt under Section 320 of IPC is set out hereunder for ready reference:

                  The following kinds of hurt only are designated as “grievous”:

                  1. Emasculation.

                  2. Permanent privation of the sight of either eye.

                  3. Permanent privation of the hearing of either ear.

                  4. Privation of any member or joint.

                  5. Destruction or permanent impairing of the powers of any member or joint.

                  6. Permanent disfiguration of the head or face.

                  7. Fracture or dislocation of a bone or tooth.

                  8. Any hurt which endangers life or which causes the sufferer to be during the space of twenty days in severe bodily pain, or unable to follow his ordinary pursuits.

8. From the entire prosecution case, it appears that the presence of the Petitioners in the scene of offence is not disputed. Moreover, the prosecution has justifiable to prove that the Accused persons have assaulted the victim. The victim himself deposed as PW-1 stated the names of the Petitioners, who assaulted him. The other substantial evidence i.e other witnesses also corroborated the version of PW-1 as well as case of the prosecution.

9. Now, only question arise before this Court whether the conviction under Section 326 of IPC is justifiable in the absence of report of Radiologist.

10. Admittedly, no Radiologist was examined in this case on behalf of the prosecution. Doctor, who examined as PW-5 has admitted the fact that he has not conducted X-Ray. PW-5 has proved the Wound Certificate, which was marked as Ex.P2. The above noted four injuries were found in the body of the victim.

11. It is the argument of the Petitioners that these are all lacerated injuries and cannot be termed as grievous injuries. So, the punishment under Section 326 of IPC is not maintainable.

12. On plain perusal of the entire prosecution case and circumstances thereon, it appears that the victim was assaulted by the present Petitioners and admitted into the hospital for about 4 days, due to the aforementioned four injuries. X-Ray report was not marked through Radiologist was not examined. The injuries as noted by PW-5 are justifiable to prove the assault and injury upon PW-1. The fracture injury in the bones of the right forearm, left forearm and both legs are appearing in the X-Ray film. The X-Ray report if duly corroborated with the report of the Doctor i.e PW-2 are justifiable and correct to the injuries sustained by the victim.

13. In the cited cases, the victim suffered injuries which cannot be connected with the injury without Radiologist report. 4 injuries were located by PW-5 at the person of PW-1. Moreover, on the basis of those injuries the victim was in hospital for 4 days. On plain reading of the injuries, the said injuries though are not endangers to the life of victim, but due to such injuries victim was hospitalized for four days and such have suffered bodily pain which led to unable him to follow his ordinary pursuits. Moreover, the other circumstances, which supports the entire prosecution case. There is no possibility to disbelieve the case of the prosecution regarding the injury inflicted by the present Petitioners upon the victim/ PW-1.

14. Considering the entire aspect and argument as advanced by learned counsel for the Petitioners, it appears to be not a good one.

15. Having heard the other factors regarding long pendency of instant Criminal Revision as well as Criminal litigation and also considering the age of the Petitioner No.1, now aged 70 years, I think it is necessary to observe that the present Petitioners being Accused persons in the Calendar Case as appeared before the learned Court below has taken part of the criminal proceedings, which happened more than 20 years ago. Petitioners are regularly attended the Trial Court with a Criminal Charge and also before Appellate Court and this Court. This must have suffered mental agony due to long pending litigation. Immense mental agony along with financial burden of long pending litigation can be very well equated with punishment.

16. With the above observation, the rigorous imprisonment imposed upon the Petitioners is hereby modified to the extent of incarceration of the Petitioners already undergone during enquiry, trial and appeal period. The Petitioners further directed to pay a fine of Rs. 20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand only) each in addition to the fine already paid and ordered by learned trial court. The Petitioners are directed to deposit a fine before the learned trial court amount within eight (08) weeks from the date of publication of this order.

17. With the above direction, the instant Criminal Revision Case is disposed of.

                  As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.