JUDGMENT : Narasimham, C.J. - This revision is against the appellate judgment of the Sessions Judge of Mayurbhanj maintaining the conviction and sentence passed on the two Petitioners by a First Class Magistrate of Balasore, for an offence u/s 325 I.P.C. 2. The prosecution case was that P. W. 2 Jati Jena of village Ranasahi was severely assaulted by the two Petitioners with lathis causing seven injuries one of which was fracture of the right hand. He immediately lodged information before the Police who, not realising the gravity of the injuries, merely recorded a Station Diary entry. Subsequently, however, the Police drew up an F.I.R. for an offence u/s 325 I.P.C. and after due investigation submitted charge-sheet. 3. The case against the Petitioners was proved by the injured person (P. W. 2) and by two eye witnesses (p. Ws. 3 and 5) who were believed by the two Courts of fact. It was urged that P. Ws. 3 and 5 should not have been believed inasmuch as they were not named as eye-witnesses in the station diary entry first lodged by the complainant. This point was urged before the lower appellate court also, and after a fun discussion of the evidence that Court rejected this argument and held that the evidence of P. Ws. 3 and 5 may be accepted. I am not inclined to interfere with this concurrent finding of fact regarding the belief or otherwise of the testimony of these two eye-witnesses, specially when the unsatisfactory features in their evidence have been fully noticed and discussed in the lower appellate Courrs judgment. 4. Mr. M. Mohanty on behalf of the Petitioners however raised two questions of law. Firstly he urged that as the medical report did not indicate the dimensions of the fracture of the metacarpal bone of the right hand of the complainant, the offence should have been reduced to one u/s 323, I.P.C. in support of this argument he relied on Mutukdhari Singh and Others Vs. Emperor where a decision of the Rangoon High Court Maung Po Yi v. Ma E Tin AIR 1937 Rang. 253, was followed. In my opinion, however, those two decisions do not apply to the facts of the present case. In the Rangoon case the only evidence was that there was a cut in the bone of the injured person. Emperor where a decision of the Rangoon High Court Maung Po Yi v. Ma E Tin AIR 1937 Rang. 253, was followed. In my opinion, however, those two decisions do not apply to the facts of the present case. In the Rangoon case the only evidence was that there was a cut in the bone of the injured person. The depth of the cut, however, was not proved, and the Rangoon High Court held that merely because the bone was cut it did not necessarily follow that it was cut through or cracked and the cut may be of a very superficial nature. The Judges of the Rangoon High Court pointed out: The primary meaning of the word 'fracture' is 'breaking' though it is conceded that it is; not necessary in the case of a fracture of the skull bone that it be divided into two separate parts because it may consist merely of a crack; but, the point is that if it is a crack it must be a crack extending from the outer surface of the skull to the inner surface. Similarly, in the Patna case also the medical evidence Was to the effect that there was an incised wound on the lower put of the left leg cutting the bone beneath. The medical officer dial not say to what extent the bone had been cut or damaged. The learned Judges therefore followed the Rangoon decision and held that 'fracture' of the bone within the meaning of Section 320 I.P.C. was not established. 5. The present case, however, stands on a different footing. The medical officer (P. W. 1) has clearly stated that there Was "fracture of the metacarpal bone of the right hand confirmed by X-Ray examination". P. W. 1 may be presumed to know what amounts to "fracture" and though the extent of the fracture is not indicated in his evidence, yet it may be reasonably inferred that it was not a superficial cut on the bone, but the breaking of the bone itself. In fact no question of any cut on the bone arises because the weapons used by the assisants in this case were lathis whereas in the aforesaid Rangoon and Patna cases sharp-cutting weapons were used. I am therefore of opinion that the Petitioners were rightly convicted u/s 325 I.P.C. Mr. In fact no question of any cut on the bone arises because the weapons used by the assisants in this case were lathis whereas in the aforesaid Rangoon and Patna cases sharp-cutting weapons were used. I am therefore of opinion that the Petitioners were rightly convicted u/s 325 I.P.C. Mr. Mohanty then urged, relying on, In Re: T. Palaniswami Goundan and Others that as it was not clear as to which of the two assailants (Petitioners) caused the fracture of the metacarpal bone, neither of them could be convicted u/s 325 I.P.C. This argument also does not appeal to me. The evidence of the victim (P. W. 2) was to the effect that on account of previous, enmity the two Petitioners fell upon him and severely beat him with lathis. Hence this seems to be a case of pre-concerted action; and when they gave him such severe blows with lathis they knew that fracture of the bone would result. Both of them would therefore be guilty of voluntarily causing grievous, hurt having regard to the definition of the expression 'voluntarily' as given in Section 39, I.P.C. and it is immaterial as to which of the two assailants gave the blow which resulted in the fracture of metacorpal bone. The position might doubtless slightly differ if there are no circumstances to show that the attack was, preconcerted. The sentence also is not excessive. I would therefore dismiss this revision petition. Final Result : Dismissed