Medical Jurisprudence And Toxicology

226 MEDICAL JURISPRUDENCE

Fracture1 or dislocation of a bone or tooth. 8. Any hurt2 which endan-
gers life or which causes the sufferer to be, during the space of twenty days,
in severe bodily pain, or unable to follow his ordinary pursuits.
j It must be remembered that a mere stay in a hospital for twenty days
Hoesnbt constitute a grievous injury as some doctors and even lawyers are
inclined to believe. It must be proved that during that period the injured
man was in severe bodily pain or unable to follow his ordinary pursuits.
An injured man may be quite capable of following his ordinary pursuits
long before twenty days are over, and yet may prolong his stay in a hospital
by interfering with the healing of his wound or for the sake or permanent
recovery or greater ease or comfort may be willing to remain as a convales-
cent in hospital, especially if he is fed at the public expense.3 I remember
a case in which a man, who had received some bruises over his arms and
back as a result of lathi blows, stayed in a cottage ward of a hospital for
over a month, and yet it was held that the injuries were simple.

Danger to life should be imminent before the injuries are designated
" dangerous to life ". Such injuries are extensive, and implicate important
structures or organs, so tnat they may prove fatal in the absence of surgical
aid. For instance, a compound fracture of the skull, a wound of a large
artery, or rupture of some internal organ, such as the spleen, should be
considered " dangerous to life ". But the injuries which prove fatal remotely
by intercurrent diseases, such as tetanus, erysipelas, etc., should not be
considered as dangerous.

If an opinion as regards the nature of a particular injury cannot be
formed at the time of the examination, as in the case of an extensive swell-
ing of a limb when its fracture cannot be detected, or in the case of a head
injury where the symptoms are obscure, the injured person must be kept
under observation until a definite opinion can be formed, and the police
should be notified of the fact.

Kind of Weapon.—In the fifth column the kind of a weapon by which the
injury was inflicted should be mentioned. This can be inferred from
examining the injury, for example, the edges, margins, ends and shape in
the case of a wound, but sometimes it is difficult to give an opinion as to
whether a particular injury, especially a contusion or a lacerated wound,
was caused by a blunt weapon or a fall. In that case it is better to give a
guarded opinion, mentioning the possibility or probability, as the case may
be. While forming an opinion the medical officer should not always depend
upon the statement of the injured person, which is often false. Again, as a

1. It must be remembered that the cutting of a bone does not necessarily involve
a fracture of that bone. In a criminal revision at the Patna High Court, in which one
received an incised wound, 3" X 3J" X 1", on the lower part of the left leg cutting the
bone underneath, it was held that where the evidence was merely that a bone had
been cut and there was nothing whatever to indicate the extent of the cut, whether
deep or a mere scratch upon the surface, it was impossible to infer from that evidence
alone that grievous hurt had been caused within the meaning of the definition of section
320, LP.C.—1C. E. v. Mutukdkari and others, 43 Cr. Law Jour., 1942, p. 511.

**«2vJ?J!?rt means bodily pain, disease or infirmity caused to any person (vide section
319, LP.C., Appendix IV).

There is nothing in this definition to suggest that the hurt should be caused by direct
pHysical contact between the assailant and the victim. Where serious mental derange-
ment is caused by some voluntary act, a hurt is caused. For instance, a person, who
deliberately sets out to cause shock to somebody with a^reak heart and succeeds in
doing so, causes hurt For an offence of hurt it is necessdcy to prove that one did the
^? * °* ^^^intention of causing hurt or jtab the knowledge that one
*° If1*6 ktt^C-Sfc*! Ckief Court Cr. Rev, AppM&No. 88 of 1943 ; Jashanmal
v. Emperor, 45 Cr. Law Jour., 1944, p. 247.

p. 807 V<tSto C/ieZa' (im> ^ Bom* 24? J Ratanlal and Tnakore, Law of Crimes, Ed. XVII,