( 109 )
THE QUEEN v. ALLIS.D. C., GdUe (Criminal), 12,531.
Ceylon Penal Code, as. 314 and 316—Hurt—Grievous hurt.
To find a person guilty of voluntarily causing grievous hurt, theoffender must be proved not only to have caused that grievoushint, but to have known he was likely to cause it.
Where a boy of 18 years kicked another of 13 years on the abdo-men and caused an injury, by reason of which the latter’s life wasin danger for some time—
Held, that the offence of which the accused is guilty is the offenceof causing hurt punishable under section 314, and not the offenceof causing grievous hurt punishable under section 316 of the CeylonPenal Code, inasmuch as there was no proof of knowledge on thepart of accused that the kick was likely to cause grievous hurt.
HE complainant and accused, who were respectively 13 and
18 years of age, went a-fishing and quarrelled with eachother, in the course of which the accused kicked the complainanton the abdomen. The kick produced puffiness and pain in thestomach and retention of urine. The doctor deposed that theboy’s life was in danger for nearly a week.
The accused was committed for trial before the District Courtof Galle, and was there indicted for grievous hurt under section316 of the Penal Code.
The District Judge found the accused guilty under that sectionand sentenced him to three months’ rigorous imprisonment.
The accused appealed.
Bawa, for appellant.
Chitty, Acting C.C., for the Crown.
10th March, 1898. Lawbie, J.—
The accused, a boy of 18, had a quarrel with a younger boy of13. He kicked him. There was no external mark, but probablythe younger boy’s bladder was fully distended. The result of thiscomparatively trifling kick was that the boy suffered from retention• of urine, and his life was in danger for a little time.
< no )1808.
I cannot hold this to be grievous hurt. To be guilty of volun-tarily causing grievous hurt the offender must be proved notonly to have caused that grievous hurt, but to have known he waslikely to cause it.
There are some often-quoted cases of death from rupture ofthe spleen caused by a comparatively slight blow given by onewho was ignorant that the person struck was diseased (see Starling'sCommentary on sections 219-333 and Mayne's Criminal Law ofIndia, chapter IX., sections 397-398a). I follow these authorities.
I regard this case as little more than an accident. No doubtboys should not kick each other, especially a big boy should notkick a boy smaller than himself, but we must not punish schoolboy fights by imprisonment at hard labour.
I set aside the conviction under section 316. I find the accusedguilty under section 314, and I order him to pay a fine of Rs. 10,or simple imprisonment for seven days.