The court underscored that, in the absence of radiological evidence (X-ray or CT scan), a conviction for “grievous hurt” based on alleged fracture under Section 320(7), IPC, cannot be sustained solely on the doctor’s oral assertion or a wound certificate. This judgment, relying on established Supreme Court and High Court precedents, revises the standard for proof, and mandates clinical or radiological corroboration for injuries to qualify as “grievous hurt” due to fracture. The decision narrows the evidentiary basis for such charges, and operates as binding precedent for all subordinate courts in Tamil Nadu.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | CRL RC(MD)/210/2024 of Rasiq Mohammed Khan @ Rasiq Vs The Inspector of Police |
| CNR | HCMD010176292024 |
| Date of Registration | 23-02-2024 |
| Decision Date | 31-10-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | PARTLY ALLOWED |
| Judgment Author | HONOURABLE MRS JUSTICE L.VICTORIA GOWRI |
| Court | Madras High Court (Madurai Bench) |
| Bench | Single – L.VICTORIA GOWRI, J. |
| Precedent Value | Binding on subordinate courts within jurisdiction |
| Overrules / Affirms | Affirms Supreme Court and High Court precedents requiring radiological evidence to prove “fracture” for grievous hurt |
| Type of Law | Criminal Law – Indian Penal Code, Criminal Procedure Code |
| Questions of Law | Whether a conviction under Section 326 IPC can stand in absence of radiological proof of fracture supporting grievous hurt under Section 320 IPC. |
| Ratio Decidendi |
The absence of radiological proof (X-ray or CT report) prevents the prosecution from proving “fracture” under Section 320(7) IPC, and thus, conviction for grievous hurt under Section 326 IPC cannot be sustained. Only when injury is so glaringly grievous that clinical examination alone is sufficient, or where proper radiological evidence is produced, can Section 326 IPC be invoked. Otherwise, conviction must fall to Section 323 IPC for “hurt.” Leading precedents from the Supreme Court and High Courts were applied to reach this conclusion. |
| Judgments Relied Upon |
|
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court | The necessity of objective, clinical or radiological evidence to constitute “fracture” for purposes of Section 320(7)/326 IPC, relying on contemporaneous Supreme Court and High Court jurisprudence. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | The first accused was alleged to have assaulted the victim with an iron pipe, causing a 9 cm sutured scalp wound and an abrasion. Though the prosecution alleged “fracture” based on the doctor’s oral evidence, no radiological (X-ray/CT scan) records were produced. Both the trial and appellate court convicted under Section 326 IPC. On revision, the High Court found that lack of radiological proof precluded a finding of “grievous hurt”, and modified the conviction to Section 323 IPC. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts in Tamil Nadu |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts and prosecuting agencies; may be cited in comparable fact situations |
| Follows |
|
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Clarifies that to secure conviction under Section 326 IPC for grievous hurt by fracture, the prosecution must produce radiological evidence (X-ray/CT report) or, in rare cases, clinical evidence so clear as to leave no doubt.
- Oral medical testimony without supporting documentary/radiological material is insufficient to support finding of “fracture” or grievous hurt under Section 320(7) IPC.
- Accused can seek reduction of charge from Section 326 to Section 323 IPC if radiological proof is not part of the record.
- Reminds practitioners that peripheral contradictions (e.g., weapon description, some hostile witnesses) are not enough to vitiate proof of core offence, but do not compensate for absence of required medical evidence on injury nature.
- Case is directly citable as authority on the evidentiary threshold for “grievous hurt” based on alleged fracture.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The court recited the statutory framework of Section 320 IPC, defining “grievous hurt,” specifically noting that “fracture or dislocation of a bone or tooth” is among listed injuries.
- Highlighted established precedents:
- Mayur Panabhai Shah v. State of Gujarat (SC): A doctor’s statement without X-ray/CT evidence is not sufficient proof of fracture.
- Sheshrao Namdeo Atkare (SC): In absence of radiological proof, finding of grievous hurt on account of fracture must be approached with caution.
- Mutukdhari Singh (Patna HC) and Kumar v. State (Madras HC): Emphasized necessity of clear, objective or documentary medical evidence for “fracture.”
- The only medical evidence produced was the wound certificate (sutured scalp wound and abrasion), with no X-ray or CT scan attached to record.
- Found that oral assertion by doctor as to “fracture” based on unproduced scans/reports was inadequate and contrary to established precedent.
- Since no evidence was led to bring the injury within any other clause of Section 320 IPC (i.e., loss of sight, permanent disablement, 20-day incapacity, etc.), the only possible ground was “fracture”—which failed for want of proof.
- Court therefore held the conviction under Section 326 IPC unsustainable and substituted conviction to Section 323 IPC; adjusted sentence accordingly.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
- Conviction for grievous hurt is unsustainable as there is no radiological proof (X-ray/CT) of fracture.
- Government hospital medical records and doctor who first treated the victim were not produced, creating a gap in evidence.
- Complainant (PW8) was not an eyewitness; PW2 turned hostile and key evidence is inconsistent, including about informant and description of weapon.
- The description of recovered pipe (by police) does not tally with that given by victim.
- Absence of clinical or documentary substantiation should result in acquittal or conviction for lesser offence.
Respondent (State)
- Core prosecution evidence from injured witness (PW6), eyewitness (PW1), and medical officer (PW5) establishes the assault.
- Peripheral contradictions do not vitiate the prosecution case; hostile witnesses and minor inconsistencies are not fatal.
- Injury caused by pipe blow on head is sufficiently serious; the trial and appellate courts’ fact-finding should not be disturbed.
Factual Background
On 24.04.2017, an altercation arising out of a pre-existing pathway dispute culminated in the first accused allegedly assaulting PW6 Abdul Kareem with an iron pipe on the left side of his head, causing a 9 cm sutured wound and an abrasion. The initial treatment was given at Government Hospital, Ramanathapuram, but records from there were not produced. FIR was registered on complaint by PW8 (brother-in-law). Both the trial and appellate courts convicted A1 (the revision petitioner) for grievous hurt under Section 326 IPC. The accused sought revision on the ground that no radiological evidence of fracture was produced in support of the charge of grievous hurt.
Statutory Analysis
- Section 320 IPC: Enumerates eight kinds of “grievous hurt,” including “fracture or dislocation of a bone or tooth.” Interpretation affirmed: A conviction for “grievous hurt” on account of fracture or dislocation under Section 320(7) mandates objective proof, preferably in form of radiological (X-ray/CT) evidence. Oral testimony or wound certificate not corroborated by such documentary evidence cannot suffice unless the injury is clinically so manifest as to leave no room for doubt.
- Section 326 IPC: Requires prosecution to prove hurt was “grievous” (as defined in Section 320) and caused by dangerous weapon.
- Section 323 IPC: Applies where “hurt” but not “grievous hurt” is established.
- The court applied a strict evidentiary standard for proof of “fracture,” and clarified prior ambiguity in law.
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
No dissenting or separate concurring opinion is reported in the judgment.
Procedural Innovations
No procedural innovations or new guidelines on procedure were laid down in this judgment.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – The judgment affirms and applies established Supreme Court and High Court law on the evidentiary requirement for “fracture” to constitute grievous hurt.