A doctor’s opinion alone cannot establish grievous hurt without proof of Section 320 criteria.

The prosecution alleged that the appellant entered PW1’s home, attempted to molest her, struck her on the head with a cement stone, and took her gold chain.

PW1 identified the appellant and the stone; her husband and his friend testified to finding her injured and recounted what she told them.

The trial court convicted the appellant under Sections 451, 354 and 392 read with 397 IPC, and acquitted him under Section 506(i) IPC.

On appeal, the High Court noted discrepancies between the chain described in the recovery records and the property later produced, as well as uncertainty about the circumstances of recovery.

It also considered whether PW1’s injury was “grievous hurt” within Section 320 IPC.

1. Whether the trial court’s conviction and sentence were sustainable on the evidence.

2. Whether the prosecution proved the alleged robbery and recovery of PW1’s gold chain beyond reasonable doubt.

3. Whether the injury was grievous hurt under Section 320 IPC, and whether the appellant could instead be convicted of a lesser offence involving hurt.

4. Whether the convictions under Sections 451 and 354 IPC should be upheld.

Section 320 IPC exhaustively specifies the categories of grievous hurt; the eighth clause requires proof that the hurt endangered life or caused severe bodily pain or inability to follow ordinary pursuits for twenty days.

In Mathai v. State of Kerala, (2005) 3 SCC 260, the Supreme Court held that a Section 320 category must be strictly proved, including under the eighth clause.

The Court also relied on In Re: Raman Ambalam, MANU/TN/0038/1951, and Sections 221 and 222 CrPC concerning conviction for an offence disclosed by the facts, including a minor offence, even where the charge is framed for a graver offence.

It referred to In Re: Joseph @ Duraian, MANU/TN/0440/1984, for the principle that a doctor’s opinion on whether an injury is grievous is not decisive; the court must assess the injury against Section 320 IPC.

The Court accepted PW1’s evidence as an injured witness and found no material basis to discredit her account of the appellant’s entry and assault.

However, it found the robbery allegation doubtful: PW1’s account of when the chain was taken differed between her complaint and testimony; the property details in Form 91 did not align with the recovery record; and the recovery witness did not say that the chain had been retrieved from a concealed place.

The medical evidence did not establish that the injury endangered life, caused severe bodily pain, or prevented PW1 from pursuing ordinary activities for twenty days; the doctor’s opinion alone was insufficient to prove grievous hurt.

The Court therefore set aside the conviction for robbery under Section 392 read with Section 397, but held that the proved assault with the cement stone supported conviction under Section 324 IPC.

It found the evidence sufficient to sustain the convictions under Sections 451 and 354 IPC.

The convictions and sentences under Sections 451 and 354 IPC were upheld; the conviction and sentence under Section 392 read with Section 397 IPC were set aside, and the appellant was instead convicted under Section 324 IPC and sentenced to three years’ rigorous imprisonment and a fine of ₹10,000, with six months’ simple imprisonment in default.

The sentences were ordered to run concurrently, and the fine was directed to be paid to PW1 as compensation under Section 357(3) CrPC.

The trial court was directed to secure the appellant to serve any remaining sentence.