Conviction for grievous hurt upheld, but imprisonment reduced to time served with an enhanced fine.

The prosecution alleged that, on 22 July 2015, the petitioner and others went to the complainant’s house during a dispute concerning water and assaulted her father, causing a fracture to both bones of his left forearm.

The trial court convicted the petitioner under Section 326 IPC and sentenced him to three years’ imprisonment and a fine of ₹5,000.

The first appellate court modified the conviction to Section 325 IPC and reduced the sentence to two years’ imprisonment, with a fine of ₹5,000.

The petitioner challenged the conviction and sentence in revision, relying, among other grounds, on inconsistencies concerning the weapon, the absence of the X-ray doctor, and the relatedness of the principal witnesses.

1. Whether the concurrent findings of guilt, as modified by the first appellate court to conviction under Section 325 IPC, suffered from illegality or perversity warranting interference in revision.

2. Whether the sentence should be modified in light of the petitioner’s age, the circumstances and age of the incident, and the period of custody already undergone.

Section 325 IPC applies to voluntarily causing grievous hurt and permits imprisonment of either description for a term of up to seven years, together with liability to fine.

The Court applied the evidentiary principle that a witness’s evidence is not to be discarded merely because the witness is related to the victim; it also considered the injured person’s testimony alongside the medical evidence.

The petition invoked the High Court’s revisional jurisdiction under Sections 397 and 401 CrPC, while the Court directed set-off under Section 428 CrPC for the custody undergone.

The Court found that the complainant and other witnesses testified to the assault, and that the injured person’s prompt hospital attendance and the doctor’s evidence—including the X-ray finding of fractures of both bones of the left arm—corroborated the injury account.

It held that the witnesses’ relationship to the injured person did not, by itself, make their evidence unreliable, and concluded that the petitioner had shown no basis to disturb the conviction under Section 325 IPC.

On sentence, the Court considered the petitioner’s age, the trivial dispute, the 2015 incident, the injured person’s age, and the petitioner’s four days in custody; it found that a reduced custodial term and an enhanced fine would meet the ends of justice.

The conviction under Section 325 IPC was confirmed, but the sentence was modified to four days’ simple imprisonment and a fine of ₹50,000, with six months’ simple imprisonment in default.

The petitioner was granted set-off under Section 428 CrPC.

The fine was to be deposited by 30 October 2026; ₹45,000 was directed to be paid to the injured person as compensation and ₹5,000 to the State.