Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

In Re: Nataraja Goundan

Type Court Judgment Court Chennai Decided Aug 08, 1938
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/783863

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Chennai
Decided On
Subject
Criminal

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

- - 2 was assaulted with sticks in and near the garden of the appellant after lamp-lighting time on the 20th of September, 1937 and there is no good reason to doubt the statement of P.

Key legal issue
Criminal

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

In Re: Nataraja Goundan

Legal References

Reported In
AIR1939Mad507; (1939)IMLJ886

Excerpt

- - 2 was assaulted with sticks in and near the garden of the appellant after lamp-lighting time on the 20th of september, 1937 and there is no good reason to doubt the statement of p.lakshmana rao, j.1. i he appellant has been convicted under section 326 of the indian penal code of voluntarily causing grievous hurt with a deadly weapon to p.w. 2 kuppa chuckli and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for four years by the learned additional sessions judge of coimbatore.2. it is undoubted and was not disputed that p.w. 2 was assaulted with sticks in and near the garden of the appellant after lamp-lighting time on the 20th of september, 1937 and there is no good reason to doubt the statement of p.w. 2 that the appellant was one of his assailants. that p.w. 2 was found carrying away some ragi stalks from the garden of the appellant is no justification for the assault and one of the injuries, namely, the simple fracture of the radius of the right arm was grievous. but this might have been due to the beating by the other assailants and even otherwise the appellant cannot be convicted under section 326 of the indian penal code unless the weapon used by him was deadly and the hurt intended or known to be likely to be caused was grievous. the stick used by him is not before the court nor is there any evidence as to its size or nature. the injury constituting grievous hurt was a simple fracture of the radius and it cannot be said for certain that hurt intended or known to be likely to be caused was grievous. the conviction under section 326 of the indian penal code is therefore unsustainable and the appellant can be convicted only under section 323 of the indian penal code.3. the conviction of the appellant is therefore altered to one under section 323 of the indian penal code and he is sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 3 months. otherwise the appeal is dismissed.

Full Judgment

Lakshmana Rao, J.

1. I he appellant has been convicted under Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code of voluntarily causing grievous hurt with a deadly weapon to P.W. 2 Kuppa Chuckli and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for four years by the learned Additional Sessions Judge of Coimbatore.

2. It is undoubted and was not disputed that P.W. 2 was assaulted with sticks in and near the garden of the appellant after lamp-lighting time on the 20th of September, 1937 and there is no good reason to doubt the statement of P.W. 2 that the appellant was one of his assailants. That P.W. 2 was found carrying away some ragi stalks from the garden of the appellant is no justification for the assault and one of the injuries, namely, the simple fracture of the radius of the right arm was grievous. But this might have been due to the beating by the other assailants and even otherwise the appellant cannot be convicted under Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code unless the weapon used by him was deadly and the hurt intended or known to be likely to be caused was grievous. The stick used by him is not before the Court nor is there any evidence as to its size or nature. The injury constituting grievous hurt was a simple fracture of the radius and it cannot be said for certain that hurt intended or known to be likely to be caused was grievous. The conviction under Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code is therefore unsustainable and the appellant can be convicted only under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. The conviction of the appellant is therefore altered to one under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code and he is sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 3 months. Otherwise the appeal is dismissed.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial