092-NLR-NLR-V-43-SILVA-v.-GUNASEKERE-et-al.pdf
404-
HOW ARD C.J.—Silva v. Gunasekere.
1942Present : Howard C.J.
SILVA v. GUNASEKERE et al.
251—M. C., Matara, 40,503.
Grievous hurt—What constitutes grievous hurt—Penal Code, s. 3/6.
The mere fact that a person has been in hospital for twenty daysis not sufficient to prove that he is suffering from a grievous hurt.
There must be further proof that during that time he was unable tofollow his ordinary pursuits.
A
PPEAL from a conviction by the Magistrate of Matara.
A. H. C. de Silva, for the complainant, appellant.
L. A. Rajapakse (with him M. Ratnam), for the accused, respondents.
May 27, 1942. Howard C.J.—
In this case, the accused were charged with, (1) voluntarily causinggrievous hurt and thereby committing an offence under section 316 ofthe Penal Code, (2) voluntarily causing simple hurt and thereby commit-ting an offence under section 314 of the Code, (3) wrongful restraint,contrary to sections 332 and 333 of the Code. After hearing the evidencefor the prosecution, the Magistrate stated that he did not believe theevidence of wrongful restraint.. He also held that the hurt was notgrievous. He, therefore, discharged the accused as the case was oneunder section 314 and exclusively triable by the Village Tribunal. Thecomplainant appeals against this decision on the ground that the evidenceestablishes that the offence of voluntarily causing grievous hurt had beencommitted. r
Tissahamy v. Perera.405
The question whether an offence under section 316 had been committeddepends on the evidence of the District Medical Officer, Matara, Dr. G. P.de Silva. After detailing the injuries, which were seven in number, hestates that the complainant was 26 days in hospital. This stay wasnecessary. The complainant was not able to carry on his ordinaryoccupation for over 26 days. In cross-examination, he states that one ortwo head wounds turned septic. If the injured man was a b.outique-keeper or trader in copra, he could have attended to his work in 15 days.In re-examination, he stated that he did not discharge the injured mantill his wounds were completly healed.
The mere fact that a man has been in hospital for twenty days is notsufficient to prove that he is suffering from a grievious hurt. It must beproved that during that time he was unable to follow his ordinary pur-suits. An injured man may be quite capable of following his ordinarypursuits long before twenty days are over and yet for the sake of perma-nent recovery or greater ease or comfort be willing to remain as aconvalescent in a hospital. In this case, the doctor’s evidence indicatesthat for greater security he remained in hospital over twenty days.He did so in order that the wounds might be completely healed. Theappeal is on the facts from an acquittal and before I can allow it I mustbe satisfied that no other conclusion was reasonably possible but thatthe accused were guilty or that the Magistrate did not apply his mindto the whole evidence in the case. (Vide Fernando v. Peiris ’). I amsatisfied that the Magistrate has given careful consideration to the Wholeevidence in the case. I am also satisfied that the conclusion at whichhe arrived was, on the doctor’s evidence, reasonably possible.
In these circumstances the appeal is dismissed.
Appeal dismissed.