HOWARD C.J.—Geeris Appu v. Seydeen
1948Present: Howard C.J.
GEERIS APPU, Appellant, and SEYDEEN, P. S. 262,Respondent
jS. G. 253—M. C. Balapitiya, 60,121
Grievous hurt—Incised wound caused by sharp weapon—Piece of bone chippedoff—Penal Code, s. 311.
An incised wound cutting into the bone and chipping off a piece of thebone is grievous hurt within the meaning of section 311 of the P enal Co de.
A P PEAL from a judgment of the Magistrate, Balapitiya.
K.G. de Silva, for accused appellant.
Arthur Keuneman, Grown Counsel, for the Attorney-General.
May 3, 1948. Howard C.J.—
In this case it has been contended that the injury inflicted by theappellant on the complainant did not amount in law to grievous hurt andI have been referred in that connection to the case of Inspector ofPolice v. Pedrick2.
(1918) S C. W. R. 146.
(1944) 46 N. L. R. 62.
HOWAKD C.J.—Geeria Appu v. Seydeen
The head-note of that ease is as follows :—
“ An injury caused to a bone by a cut, which does not indicatethat the bone was broken or cracked, is not grievous hurt withinthe meaning of section 311 of the Penal Code. ”
Now in this case the doctor’s evidence was to the effect that thecomplainant had a curved incised wound just behind the right ear 2 incheslong and half an inch deep cutting into the bone of the skull and chipping. off a piece of bone half an inch long caused by a sharp weapon. Inview of the fact that a piece of the bone was chipped off, it is impossibleto contend that there was no fracture or dislocation of the bone. Thereis no substance then in this point of law which has been taken.
With regard to the facts, the Magistrate has given a careful judgmentand I am not prepared to say that he came to a wrong conclusion, eventhough there was a conflict of evidence.
The appeal is dismissed.
GEERIS APPU, Appellant, and SEYDEEN, P. S. 262, Respondent