Order.- Crl.R.P. 273 of 1960 is filed by the second accused challenging his conviction under section 324, Indian Penal Code, and sentence of rigorous imprisonment for two months awarded to him by the Additional First Class Magistrate of Ernakulam and confirmed by the learned Sessions Judge in Criminal Appeal No. 28 of 1960. Crl.R.P. 420 of 1960 is by P.Ws. 1 and 4 who are the injured in the case against the acquittal of the first accused under section 326, Indian Penal Code, and convicting him only under section 324, Indian Penal Code and releasing him under the Probation of Offenders Act. Notice was also issued by this Court to show cause why the sentence on the first accused should not be enhanced. The third accused in the case was acquitted. She is the wife of the second accused and the first accused is their son. They are related to P.W. 1 and are neighbouring cultivators. For some time past there were disputes and litigation regarding the varamba separating their properties. On 18th October, 1958 it is stated the accused dug up the bund and planted some arecanut saplings. This was removed by the complainant’s people. On the next day the accused again planted arecanut plants and erected a fence. P.W. 1 informed his brother P.W. 4 and together they proceeded to the scene at about 5 p.m. When they reached the place they saw the accused standing in their property. P.W. 1 asked the third accused why they were troubling him like that. The third accused said that they were not troubling and immediately the 2nd accused beat P.W. 1 on the head with a stick M.O. 1 which he had with him. Then the second accused caught him with both the hands and handed the stick to his wife. She also beat him with the stick. When P.W. 1 was about to fall down their son the first accused came running and stabbed him on his back several times. P.W. 4 tried to intervene and then the first accused cut him also. He warded off the cut and got injured in his arm. The second accused snatched the stick from the third accused and beat P.W. 4. On hearing the cries P.W. 3 the son of P.W. 4 came. The injured were removed to the hospital. P.Ws. P.W. 4 tried to intervene and then the first accused cut him also. He warded off the cut and got injured in his arm. The second accused snatched the stick from the third accused and beat P.W. 4. On hearing the cries P.W. 3 the son of P.W. 4 came. The injured were removed to the hospital. P.Ws. 2 and 6 two of the neighbours who were present there witnessed the incident. P.W. 9 the Medical Officer examined P.W. 1 and issued a certificate, Exhibit P-5. P.W. 1 had 9 injuries which have been correctly described in the certificate. P.W. 4 was also examined and his wound certificate is Exhibit P-6. P.W. 12 is another Assistant Surgeon of the hospital who proved the discharge certificates Exhibits P-8 and P-9. P.W. 14, the Sub-Inspector of Police came to the hospital and recorded the statement Exhibit P-1 from P.W. 1. The accused surrendered on 25th October, 1958. The stick M.O. 1 was recovered from the house of the first accused and knife M.O. 2 was produced by the second accused. After completing the investigation the accused were charge-sheeted. The second accused admitted the incident, but according to him P.Ws. 1 and 4 were the aggressors. He stated that the bund belongs to him, that it had been surveyed and that they had planted arecanut saplings on the bund. He denied having beaten or caused hurt to P.Ws. 1 and 4. The first accused admitted having inflicted the injuries on P.Ws. 1 and 4, but he would have it that he had done so because he found his father being attacked by P.Ws. 1 and 4. The third accused denied participation in the incident. On a consideration of the evidence the learned Additional first Class Magistrate found that the prosecution has not succeeded in bringing home the guilt to the third accused and acquitted her. The first accused was found guilty under section 326, Indian Penal Code, and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 6 months and the second accused was convicted under section 324, Indian Penal Code, and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 2 months. On appeal the learned Sessions Judge of Ernakulam confirmed the conviction and sentence passed on the second accused. He also found that the first accused had inflicted the stab injuries on P.Ws. On appeal the learned Sessions Judge of Ernakulam confirmed the conviction and sentence passed on the second accused. He also found that the first accused had inflicted the stab injuries on P.Ws. I and 4, but he found that the offence committed was only one under section 324, Indian Penal Code, and since the first accused was a boy aged only 19 he invoked the provisions of section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act and placed him under the supervision of the District Probation Officer. The learned counsel appearing for the accused took me through the entire evidence as he is entitled to do under section 439, clause (6) Criminal Procedure Code. The incident is amply proved by the evidence of the disinterested witnesses and the admission of the accused. The plea of private defence has been rightly negatived. I do not find any good reason to differ from the concurrent findings of the Courts below that the offence has been brought home to the accused free from doubt. The next question is as to what is the offence that they have committed. The first accused as stated already has been found guilty under section 324, Indian Penal Code only by the learned Sessions Judge. He has discussed fully the question whether the offence committed by the first accused would amount to an offence under section 326, Indian Penal Code in paragraphs 16 to 20 of the judgment. No doubt P.Ws. 1 and 4 have stated that they were in-patients in the hospital for more than 20 days as required under section 320, clause (8). But curiously the doctor has not been questioned whether the hurt caused the sufferer to be during the space of 20 days in severe bodily pain or unable to follow his ordinary pursuits. It is only if there is such proof that it would be safe to conclude that the injury would come in under the description of grievous injury. P.W. 9 the doctor was asked about injury No. 4 sustained by P.W. 1 whether it was a grievous or a simple injury and his answer was ‘I do not know’. The mere fact that the sufferer did not attend to his duty for the statutory period or that he remained in the hospital for that period is no indication of his inability to do so. The mere fact that the sufferer did not attend to his duty for the statutory period or that he remained in the hospital for that period is no indication of his inability to do so. As was observed in Queen Express v. Vasta Chela1: “An injured man may be quite capable of following his ordinary pursuits long before twenty days are over and yet for the sake of permanent recovery or greater ease or comfort be willing to remain as a convalescent in a hospital, especially if he is fed at the public expense.” When the patient is treated in a hospital, the opinion of the Medical Officer attending on him on the point of his disability is very important. Unfortunately that is lacking in this case. Injury No. 4 in Exhibit P-5 will not also bring it under clause (6) of section 320 as it does not involve permanent disfiguration of the head or face. To disfigure is to do a man some external injury which detracts from his personal appearance. P.W. 1 was present in Court and on looking at the scar of the injury, I am not prepared to say that the injury has disfigured his face. Similarly injury No. 2 sustained by P.W. 4 also would not amount to a grievous injury because as a result of that injury the finger of P.W. 4 was not permanently incapacitated. There is no such evidence in the case. Neither the doctor nor P.W. 4 says that his finger was permanently incapacitated. The learned counsel who appeared for the injured in Crl.R.P. No. 420 of 1960 has strenuously contended that there is sufficient evidence to warrant a finding that the injuries were grievous and he pointed out that the evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 4 remain unchallenged in cross-examination. But as stated earlier being in the hospital for twenty days is not the sole test. Even otherwise revisional jurisdiction of this Court when invoked by a private party would be exercised only in exceptional cases where the interests of public justice require interference for correction of a manifest illegality or the prevention of gross miscarriage of justice and the jurisdiction will not ordinarily be used even if it could be said that the Court had misappreciated the evidence or taken a wrong view of the law. I am unable to agree that this is a case for interference in revision. Then the question is regarding the sentence awarded to the accused. Under section 6 of the Probation of Offenders Act when any person under twenty-one years of age is found guilty of having committed an offence punishable with imprisonment (but not with imprisonment for life) the Court by which the person is found guilty shall not sentence him to imprisonment unless it is satisfied that having regard to the circumstances of the case including the nature of the offence and the character of the offender it would not be desirable to deal with him under section 3 or section 4 and if the Court passes any sentence of imprisonment on the offender it shall record its reasons for doing so. Section 3 refers to the power of the Court to release certain offenders after admonition and section 4 deals with the release on probation of good conduct. In the absence of any circumstances to show that it is undesirable to deal with him under section 4 it cannot be said that the learned Sessions Judge has not properly exercised his discretion in invoking the provisions of section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act. Sentence is purely in the discretion of the Court and unless the sentence awarded is so grossly inadequate the revisional Court will not interfere. On a consideration of the circumstances of this case, I do not find any ground to interfere with the discretion exercised by the learned Sessions Judge. Criminal Revision Petition No. 420 of 1960 has only to be dismissed. The learned counsel for the second accused contends that the stick M.O. 1cannot be considered as a weapon of offence likely to cause death and therefore the offence committed by him would only be one under section 323, Indian Penal Code, and it is submitted that in any view of the case it is not necessary in the interests of justice that the second accused should be sent to jail. It was pointed out that he had already been in jail for a few days till he was released on bail by this Court and that it is unnecessary to send him back to jail. It was pointed out that he had already been in jail for a few days till he was released on bail by this Court and that it is unnecessary to send him back to jail. Without deciding whether the offence would only be one under section 323, Indian Penal Code, I think the interests of justice will be met by awarding a heavy sentence of fine on the second accused. In the result the conviction of the second accused under section 324, Indian Penal Code, is confirmed, but his sentence is altered to one of a fine of Rs. 200, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months. Out of the fine, if collected, a sum of Rs. 75 will be paid to each of the injured persons P.Ws. 1 and 4 as compensation for the injuries sustained by them under section 545(1), Criminal Procedure Code. With this modification the revision petitions are dismissed. Time for payment one month from this date. M.C.M. ----- Order modified.