JUDGMENT : P. Habeeb Mohamed, J. The appeal has been preferred by the accused in Sessions Case No. 12 of 1124 on the file of the Trivandrum Sessions Court against his conviction under S. 326 t.p.c., and sentence of 6 months, rigorous imprisonment passed by the Additional Sessions Judge. 2. The accused and P.Ww. 1 to 3 and 8 are members of a divided Nair tarwad. Accused belongs to one branch while P.Ws. 1 to 3 and 8 belong to another branch. The accused is living in a compound to the immediate north of the house in which P.Ww. 1 to 3 and 8 are residing. There are long standing disputes between the members of these two branches. In between the houses of the accused and P.Ww. 1 to 3 and 8 is situated a property about which also there is some dispute between the parties. On 29.5.1123 the accused took a calf to the compound belonging to P.W. 2 and tied it to a young cocoanut tree. P.W. 2 again united the calf. This led to a quarrel in the course of which the accused abused P.W. 2 and threatened her with worse consequence. P.W. 11 a retired Inspector of Police is P.W.2's sister's husband. He was informed about this incident by P.W. 2 and he put in a complaint against the accused, his sister and aunt before the Nemom Police. The Police issued notice to the accused, his sister and other female members of the family on this petition. Enraged by this the accused went to the house of P.W. 1 at about 10 P.M. on 5.6.1123, set fire to an out house in that compound and inflicted a cut on P.W. 1 with M.O. 2 chopper while P.W. 1 was sleeping in a cot in the front portion of his house. On sustaining the cut P.W. 1 woke up and cried aloud. He immediately jumped into the verandha and noticed the accused escaping from the place with the chopper. The cry of P.W. 1 attracted P.Ww. 2 and 3 to the scene, and they also raised a hue and cry. Some of the neighbours came to the place and saw the out house on fire and P.W. 1 with bleeding wounds on his fingers. They put out the fire and gave first aid to P.W. 1. P.W. 1 was taken to the Police Station during the night. Some of the neighbours came to the place and saw the out house on fire and P.W. 1 with bleeding wounds on his fingers. They put out the fire and gave first aid to P.W. 1. P.W. 1 was taken to the Police Station during the night. The accused also appeared before the Police Station and surrendered the chopper. The police after recording the statement of P.W. 1 sent him for treatment to the General Hospital, Trivandrum. The accused was placed under arrest and the next day he was sent to the 2nd Class Magistrate, Neyyattinkara for recording his confession, Ext. K. After completing the investigation the Police charged the accused for offences under Ss. 307 and 437 T.P.C. The Magistrate completed preliminary enquiry and committed the accused to the Sessions Court of Trivandrum to stand his trial. The Additional Sessions Judge, who tried the case acquitted the accused of offences under Ss. 307 and 437 but convicted him under S. 326 for having caused grievous hurt to P.W. 1 and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. 3. There s no dispute that P.W. 1 sustained the injuries found on him. He had four incised injuries of which one was on the right little finger and the other three on the fingers of the left hand. P.W. 9 the Medical Officer, says that all these injuries could have been caused by a cut with M.O. 2 chopper. Ext. D is the wound certificate. 4. The authorship of injuries on P.W. 1 has been well-established in the case. It is true that there is no eye witness who actually saw the accused inflicting the injury on P.W. 1; but the circumstantial evidence afforded by P.W. 1, his statement Ext. A and the oral testimony of P.Ww. 2, 3, 5, 6 and 7 prove beyond doubt that the accused is the person who inflicted the injuries on P.W. 1 Ext. A which is the earliest statement of P.W. 1 given soon after the occurrence specifically says that the accused was found jumping out of the house with a chopper when P.W. 1 woke up on sustaining the injury. P.W. 1 had just fallen asleep when the cut was inflicted. He is not in a position to say the manner in which his hands were placed while he fell asleep. P.W. 1 had just fallen asleep when the cut was inflicted. He is not in a position to say the manner in which his hands were placed while he fell asleep. There is very reason for thinking that both hands were placed very near each other or one over the other. A single cut with a chopper would produce all the four injuries on the fingers. P.Ww. 1 and 3 the other inmates of the house who rushed to the scene saw the accused escaping with a chopper. P.W. 5 is a neighbour whose evidence supports P.Ww. 2 and 3. P.W. 7 is another neighbour who has identified the accused when he sighted him running away from the place of occurrence with chopper. There are other witnesses who saw the accused just before the occurrence near the house of P.W. 1. The evidence of these witnesses proves beyond doubt that the accused is the author of the injuries. 5. Ext. K is the confession given by the accused which was retracted by him in the Sessions Court. The learned Counsel for the accused contended that the confession is not admissible in evidence. It is argued that the confession was recorded nearly 15 hours after the Police took the accused into custody and the Magistrate did not put any question to the accused as to the nature of the treatment that he had been receiving while in the Police custody. The learned Counsel relying on A.I.R. 1949 Orissa 67 contends that this omission on the part of the Magistrate is sufficient to render the confession inadmissible in evidence. It is true that the Magistrate did not put any specific question to the accused as to the nature of the treatment he had been receiving from the Police. The Magistrate, P.W. 14, has not been specifically asked why he did not put such a question to the accused. He says that he has taken every precaution to ensure the confession a voluntary one. Another objection taken by the learned Counsel is that the Magistrate who is said to have explained to the accused that he was not bound to make a confession and if he makes a confession it would be has failed to comply with all the directions given in the Circular. Another objection taken by the learned Counsel is that the Magistrate who is said to have explained to the accused that he was not bound to make a confession and if he makes a confession it would be has failed to comply with all the directions given in the Circular. He has no certified that he has examined the person of the accused with a view to ascertain that the confession is a voluntary one and no question was put to the accused regarding the treatment he had at the hands of the Police. We do not therefore think it safe to rely on Ext. K confession. 6. We have already stated that the circumstantial evidence in the present case leaves no room for doubt that the accused is the author of the injuries found on P.W. 1. In the result we confirm the conviction and sentence passed by the lower court and dismiss the appeal.