P. S. NARAYANA, J. ( 1 ) THE appellant aggrieved by the Judgment of the Special judge for Trial of cases under essential Commodities Act cum III Addl. Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad in Sessions Case No. 61 of 1996 dated 23-10-1998 convicting the appellant-accused for the offence under Section 333 I PC and sentencing him to undergo S. I. for six months and also pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default to suffer S. I. for further three months, had preferred the present Criminal Appeal. ( 2 ) THE facts in brief are that on 28-07-1995 at about 0920 hours P. W. 1 while conducting the bus bearing No. Ap-9- z-81 Route No. 9y from Afzalgunj to yousufguda, and when the bus reached near nampally bus station, a passenger boarded the bus from front side exit in a rude manner and when P. W. 1 requested him to come from rear-side exit, since the ladies are getting down, the said person instead of getting down, got wild, picked up a quarrel with him, caught hold of his collar, pulled him, gave fist blows on his mouth and other parts of the body, resulting the upper side tooth broken and there was bleeding, and on seeing this, duty Controller, nearby Home Guards and driver came to his rescue, caught hold of the said person and handed over to the police. On the strength of the said report, a case in crime No. 411 of 1995 was registered under section 333 IPC was registered. ( 3 ) SRI Srinivas Sukla, learned counsel representing appellant-accused would submit that except the evidence of P. W. 1, there is no other evidence available on record. Though, it is the version of the prosecution that the other passengers were also present, but none were examined and hence, on the strength of the uncorroborated testimony of p. W. 1, the conviction and sentence imposed cannot be sustained. The learned counsel further contended that the accused was a young boy, at the relevant point of time, a student. The counsel also would further contend that the evidence on record would disclose that because of the fist on the mouth of P. W. 1 by the accused, he had lost one tooth and hence, this would fall under grievous hurt. The counsel also would further contend that the evidence on record would disclose that because of the fist on the mouth of P. W. 1 by the accused, he had lost one tooth and hence, this would fall under grievous hurt. The learned counsel would contend that this view is not the correct view and placed strong reliance on the decision of the division bench of Calcutta High Court in v. R. Murthy v. State. The learned counsel ultimately would contend that even otherwise taking the facts and circumstances of the case into consideration, it is a fit case where a lenient view may have to be taken. ( 4 ) PER contra, the learned Additional public prosecutor Sri Osman Shaheed with all vehemence would submit that fracture or dislocation of a bone or tooth would fall under grievous hurt under Section 320 IPC and hence, a view expressed by the Division bench of Calcutta High Court may not be the correct view. The learned Additional Public prosecutor also would contend that this is a case where the conductor while discharging his duty had objected the accused entering the bus from the front side exit which is meant for ladies and having been enraged by such objection taken by the conductor-P. W. 1 the accused had given fist blows on the mouth andotherparts of the body of P. W. 1 resulting in the upper side tooth being broken. The very fact that the accused was apprehended immediately would amply support the version of prosecution that accused is the person who had committed this offence. The learned additional Public Prosecutor also would contend that the learned Judge recorded reasons in detail and in fact he had dealt with the accused in a lenient way and hence, the said findings are to be confirmed. ( 5 ) HEARD both the learned counsel. The learned additional Public Prosecutor also would contend that the learned Judge recorded reasons in detail and in fact he had dealt with the accused in a lenient way and hence, the said findings are to be confirmed. ( 5 ) HEARD both the learned counsel. ( 6 ) THE case of the prosecution is that on 28-07-1995 at about 0920 hours P. W. 1 while conducting the bus bearing No. AP-9- z81, Rout No. 9y from Afzalgunj to yousufguda and when the bus reached nampally bus station appellant-accused boarded the bus from front side exit in a rude manner and when P. W. 1 requested him to come from rear side exist, since ladies are getting down, the said person instead of getting down, got wild, picked up a quarrel with him, caught hold of his collar pulled him, gave fist blows on his mouth and other parts of the body, resulting the upper side tooth broken. ( 7 ) THE evidence of P. W. 6 is that he is working as Causality Medical Officer, Gandhi hospital Secunderabad On 28-07-1995 at 10. 30 a. m. P. W. 1 was brought to the Hospital by PC 2047 of P. S. Saifabad and P. W. 6 examined P. W. 1 and found the following injuries: (1) Upper central incisor in right side missing. (2) Abrasion upper end of right leg about 3 x 1 cm (3) Abrasion over left elbow about 2x1 cm (4) Tenderness over left forearm; he has given first aid. Then he referred the p. W. 1 to Dental Surgeon. According to dental surgeon injury No. 1 is grievous. Ex. P-4 is the wound certificate issued by him. The injury No. 1 can be caused by any blunt object or by fist blow. Injuries 2 to 4 are possible by fall on rough surface or come into contact with any rough surface. ( 8 ) P. W. 7-Assistant Professor, government Dental College, Afzalgunj, hyderabad also deposed that she had examined P. W. 1 and found the following injury:"there was missing upper right central incissor with fresh socket and blood clot. "she gave treatment to P. W. 1 Since teeth is missing the nature of injury is grievous. Ex. P-4 contains her signature and opinion. M. 0. 1 is right upper incissor. "she gave treatment to P. W. 1 Since teeth is missing the nature of injury is grievous. Ex. P-4 contains her signature and opinion. M. 0. 1 is right upper incissor. ( 9 ) APART from this medical evidence, as far as incident occurred is concerned, P. W. 1 deposed in detail what had happened on the fateful day. P. W. 2 also had corroborated the evidence of P. W. 1. P. W. 3-Controller of apsrtc of Kukatpally deposed that on 28-7-1995 he was on duty at the relevant point of time and deposed about the incident of P. W. 1 giving a written complaint to the police. ( 10 ) P. W. 4 was examined in relation to m. O 1 and also panchanama Ex. P-2. P. W. 5 is the S. I. of police who deposed about the details of investigation. On the evidence available on record, the learned Judge arrived at a conclusion that the accused is guilty of an offence under Section 333 IPC. The medical evidence would disclose that P. W. 1 had lost one tooth and the injury is of grievous in nature. ( 11 ) IN V. R. Murthy v. State the Division bench of Calcutta High Court while dealing with a case of accused giving a fist blow on the face of the employee of Municipal Board, in view of the severe scarcity of water and accused asking the injured to release water and injury sustained on lower jaw resulting in broken tooth dangling from socket which was held to be a case of simple hurt. The Division bench observed at para 9 as hereunder:"all the aforesaid facts go to show that the injury was not grave and serious so as to come within the offence of grievous hurt. What is grievous hurt has been mentioned in Section 320 of the Indian penal Code. Under the "seventh category" of Section 320 "fracture or dislocation of a bone or tooth" may come under the heading and designated as "grievous" hurt. If there had been dislocation of tooth causing grievous hurt, it would not have been possible for the injured person to move about throughout the day as was done by p. W. 5 Chinnappan. It is also his evidence that he attended to his duties from the next morning itself. If there had been dislocation of tooth causing grievous hurt, it would not have been possible for the injured person to move about throughout the day as was done by p. W. 5 Chinnappan. It is also his evidence that he attended to his duties from the next morning itself. On the contrary it appears that he could not attend to his duties because he moved about with police man up to 6 p. m. on the date of incident until he reached the police Station. The facts and records suggested that the injury can only be a case of "simple hurt" and he cannot be convicted under Section 333 IPC since the injury suffered may not come within the definition of grievous hurt. It is also in the evidence of P. W. 5 Chinnappan that previous to the time of occurrence he had no ill-feeling with the accused. Nor did he ever quarrel with Chinnapan regarding supply of water. It thus appears that there was no personal animosity between him and the accused. It is also admitted position that there was severe water scarcity during that period. It may be that at the heat of the moment caused due to acute scarcity and non-availability of water, the accused could not resist his temper. " ( 12 ) IN Thokehom Bira Singh and others v. Manipur Administration while dealing with the aspect of fracture or dislocation of tooth the Manipur Judicial Commissionerobserved that:". . . . . . . . . . . THAT the teeth were originally not loose and that they became dislocated as a result of the injury. No attempt was made to prove this by the prosecution. The mere statement that the four teeth were loose" is not sufficient to make it an injury even and much less to make it a grievous injury within the meaning of section 320 seventhly. It has to be proved that there was fracture or dislocation by the injury. No fracture was proved. Mere looseness will not amount to dislocation of the teeth. "section 320 IPC deals with grievous hurt and the relevant portion reads the following points of hurt only are designated as grievous. Seventh category of Section 320 IPC fracture or dislocation of a bone or teeth. ( 13 ) IN Horilalv. No fracture was proved. Mere looseness will not amount to dislocation of the teeth. "section 320 IPC deals with grievous hurt and the relevant portion reads the following points of hurt only are designated as grievous. Seventh category of Section 320 IPC fracture or dislocation of a bone or teeth. ( 13 ) IN Horilalv. State of Uttar Pradesh the apex Court at para 6 held: "it now remains to consider whether the conviction of the appellants under section 326 for grievous hurt is justified. The answer to this question would depend on the nature of the injuries which have been found on P. W. 2, namely, whether they are simple or grievous. In order to justify conviction under Section 326, injuries on P. W. 2 must satisfy the requirements of Cl. (7) or Cl. (8) of Section 320 of the Indian penal Code otherwise they will be treated as simple injuries. Cls. (7) and (8) of Section 320 IPC. Provide that an injury could only be designated as grievous if it is (1) a fracture or dislocation of a bone or tooth, or (2) any hurt which endangers 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. ( 14 ) IN the light of the medical evidence available on record coupled with the evidence of P. W. 1 there cannot be any doubt that the nature of injury is grievous and this Court is of the considered opinion that the view expressed by the Division bench of the calcutta High Court cannot be said to be the correct view or at any rate the same is distinguishable on facts. However, this is a case of a student entering the bus and the age of the student at the relevant point of time was only about 19 years and no doubt there was some controversy between P. W. 1 and appellant-accused. Strong reliance was placed on 1991 (1) ALD Criminal 547 (?), AIR 1979 SC 680 and also 1985 Crl. L. J. 896 and a request was made that it is a fit case where probation of Offenders Act, may have to be applied in a case of this nature. Strong reliance was placed on 1991 (1) ALD Criminal 547 (?), AIR 1979 SC 680 and also 1985 Crl. L. J. 896 and a request was made that it is a fit case where probation of Offenders Act, may have to be applied in a case of this nature. ( 15 ) IN view of thefacts and circumstances, appellant-accused be released on Probation of good conduct for a period of one year and the sentence and the fine imposed be kept in abeyance on condition of the appellant- accused entering into a bond with two sureties to the satisfaction of the learned trial judge. It is also made clear that the trial judge after a period of one year taking in to consideration of the report of the District Probation Officer concerned pass appropriate orders. It is also made clear that this will not come in the way of the appellant-accused in any way making an application or getting any employment. ( 16 ) THIS appeal is disposed of accordingly to the extent indicated above.