Injury Causing Hole In Ear Drum Without A 100% Loss Of Hearing Capacity Wouldn't Amount To 'Grievous Hurt' U/S 320 IPC: Allahabad HC

The Allahabad High Court has recently held that if an injury has been caused in the nature of a hole in the eardrum and if the same does not cause a hundred per cent loss of hearing capacity, then such an injury doesn't amount to 'grievous hurt' as per Section 320 (thirdly) of IPC.

The Court further observed that for such an act of inflicting injury (causing a hole in the eardrum) to fall under the 'grievous hurt' category, it has to be shown by way of medical evidence that there was a permanent privation of the hearing of ear or hundred per cent loss of hearing capacity.

"It has been seen that if a hole has been made in the ear drum, there would not be permanent privation of the hearing capacity of the ear. In that case, certainly there would be some loss in hearing capacity, but it cannot be said that there would be complete loss of hearing capacity. If there is hundred percent loss of hearing capacity on account of such hole injury, certainly Section 320 I.P.C would attract and if any dangerous weapon or means mentioned under Section 326 I.P.C has been used in commission of crime only in that case, Section 326 I.P.C would apply"

With this, the bench of Justice Umesh Chandra Sharma quashed an order of the ACJM Ist, Aligarh summoning the accused applicants to face trial under Section 326 IPC (Voluntarily causing grievous hurt by dangerous weapons or means).

In the instant case, the bench noted that the injuries were caused by stick in the right ear of the victim by the accused, however, the same would not amount to 'grievous hurt' as there is no medical report that there has been permanent loss of hearing capacity of victim's ear and hence, the same is not covered under Section 326 IPC.

In the instant case, the Accused Nazim was summoned by the ACJM Ist, Aligarh to face trial under Section 326 as it concluded that the accused had caused a hole in the drum of the right ear of the injured opposite party no. 2 Smt. Rukhsana. 

The concerned court, in its order, while discussing the scope of Sections 320 and 326 IPC, opined that the injuries caused to the victim were grievous in nature and in the opinion of E.N.T Surgeon there was a hole in the right ear drum, hence, it was a grievous hurt.

Challenging the same, the accused moved to the High Court on the ground that the medical report and the supplementary medical report of the victim did not make out any offence under Section 326 I.P.C as she did not appear for her re-medical examination before the medical board despite the order of the S.S.P and C.M.O, for the ascertainment of the nature of the injury.

Having perused the scope of Section 320 IPC and the order of the ACJM, the High Court observed that only an injury in the nature of a hole in the right ear drum of opposite party no. 2 is not covered under Section 320 (thirdly) I.P.C. as there is no medical evidence to establish that there was a permanent privation of the hearing of the right ear.

The Court further observed that the injuries caused by a stick in the right ear of the victim by Naazim can not be said to be grievous hurt as there is no medical report that there has been permanent loss of hearing capacity in her right ear. Also, it can not be said that such injury is covered under Section 326 IPC.

With this, the court quashed the summoning order and allowed the application of the accused.

Appearances

Counsel for Applicant: Devendra Dahma, Sanjay Mishra

Counsel for Opposite Party: G.A.,Ravi Prakash Singh

Case title - Nazim And 4 Others vs. State of U.P. and Another [APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 19835 of 2019]

Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 132

Click Here To Read/Download Order