( 1 ) THIS is a revision filed against conviction of the petitioner by the trial Court and confirmed by the appellate Court. The petitioner was charged for the offence under Section 338 of IPC. He was convicted and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for three months. In appeal, the conviction and sentence were confirmed. ( 2 ) THE learned counsel for petitioner submits that the ingredients of Section 338 of IPC are that a person who receives injury by an act of negligence should receive an injury which is in the nature of being grievous hurt. Section 338 of ipc is reproduced hereunder-"338. Causing grievous hurt by act endangering life or personal safety of others: whoever causes grievous hurt to any person by doing any act so rashly or negligently as to endanger human life, or the personal safety of others, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both. " ( 3 ) COUNSEL for petitioner submits that there was no evidence before the trial Court that the injury suffered by the victim due to the alleged negligent act of the petitioner was grievous in nature, as such, the petitioner could have not been convicted for the offence under Section 338 of IPC. Grievous hurt is defined in Section 320 of IPC. There are eight kinds of hurt which are designated as grievous by the IPC and they are- First Emasculation Secondly Permanent privation of the sight of either eye. Thirdly Permanent privation of the hearing of either ear. Fourthly Privation of any member or joint. Fifthly Destruction or permanent impairing of the powers of any member or joint. Sixthly Permanent disfiguration of the head or face. Seventhly Fracture or dislocation of a bone or tooth. Eighthly 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. about:blank ( 4 ) THEREFORE, it is contended by the learned counsel for petitioner that unless the hurt falls within the eight designations under Section 320 of IPC, there cannot be any conviction under Section 338 of IPC. ( 5 ) COMING to the facts of the case, the victim himself stated that he sustained injuries on his head and legs. ( 5 ) COMING to the facts of the case, the victim himself stated that he sustained injuries on his head and legs. He did not state the nature of the injuries and every injury on head or legs cannot be termed to be grievous hurt. The Doctor, who was examined, was the Doctor who saw the victim when he was brought before him after the accident. He only admitted the patient but did not treat him. In his statement he stated that he admitted the patient with head injury. He was categoric in his statement that he had not issued any wound certificate in the case. ( 6 ) SINCE there was no evidence produced by the prosecution to show that the victim had suffered a grievous hurt, therefore, the conviction under Section 338 of IPC was misplaced. In view of this finding, it is not necessary to go into the other questions raised by the counsel for petitioner, which may amount to re-appreciation of evidence. ( 7 ) FOR the reasons given hereinabove, the revision is allowed. The order of conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court as confirmed by the appellate court, is set aside. The petitioner/accused is acquitted of the charge for the offence under Section 338 of IPC.