ORDER : This revision has been directed against the judgment dated 26.10.2010 in Crl.A.No.85/2008 on the files of the Additional Sessions Court (Adhoc) I, Kasaragod (for short “the appellate court”) confirming the judgment in C.C.No.381/1996 dated 15/2/2008 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate-I, Kasaragod (for short “the trial court”). 2. The accused (three in numbers) at the courts below are the revision petitioners. They faced trial for offences punishable under Sections 341 and 326 read with Section 34 of IPC. 3. The prosecution case in short is that, on 8.3.1995 at 5 pm, the accused Nos. 1 to 3 in furtherance of their common intention wrongfully restrained PW1 at a place called Chala in Kasaba town and inflicted grievous injuries by beating with iron pipe and thus committed the offence. According to the prosecution, during the incident, PW1 lost 4 teeth from the upper jaw and 7 teeth from the lower jaw and further sustained fracture at maxilla. The accused appeared at the court below. After hearing both sides, charge was framed against the accused under Sections 341 and 326 read with Section 34 of IPC. The charge was read over and explained to the accused who pleaded not guilty. On the side of the prosecution, PW1 to PW11 were examined and Exts.P1 to P9 were marked. MO1 to MO3 were identified. No defence evidence was adduced. The trial court on appreciation of evidence found the accused guilty under Sections 341 and 326 read with Section 34 of IPC and they were convicted for the said offences. The accused were sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one month each under Section 341 read with Section 34 of the IPC and rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/-each, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for 1 year each, under Section 326 of IPC. The appellate court, in appeal, confirmed the conviction and sentence and dismissed the appeal. The conviction and sentence passed by both courts below are under challenge in this revision petition. 4. It is well settled that the revisional jurisdiction under Sections 397 and 401 of Cr.P.C. was to confer power upon superior courts a kind of paternal or supervisory jurisdiction in order to correct miscarriage of justice arising from misconception of law, irregularity of procedure, neglect of proper precautions or apparent harshness of treatment. 4. It is well settled that the revisional jurisdiction under Sections 397 and 401 of Cr.P.C. was to confer power upon superior courts a kind of paternal or supervisory jurisdiction in order to correct miscarriage of justice arising from misconception of law, irregularity of procedure, neglect of proper precautions or apparent harshness of treatment. It has been consistently held by the Apex Court that the jurisdiction of the High Court in revision is severely restricted and it cannot embark upon re-appreciation of evidence. 5. The court below relied on the evidence of PW1 to PW3 and PW5 to prove the incident and to fix the culpability on the accused. PW1 is the injured. PW2 is a relative of PW1 and an occurrence witness. PW3 is the wife of PW1. PW5 is another occurrence witness. PW1 to PW3 and PW5 gave consistent and credible version of the crime. Their evidence inspires confidence. Even though they were cross examined at length, nothing tangible has been extracted from their evidence to create any shadow of doubt that they are not truthful witnesses. No vital contradictions or material omissions were brought out in their evidence. They clearly deposed about the manner in which the accused attacked the victim, the nature of the weapon used by them and the part of the body of injured whereupon the injuries were inflicted by the accused. They have also identified MO1 iron pipe as the weapon used for the commission of offence. Therefore, both courts below rightly relied on their evidence to prove the incident. Their evidence would clearly establish that the accused wrongfully restrained PW1 and inflicted injuries on his body with MO1. I find no reason to upset the said finding of fact under the exercise of the jurisdiction vested with this Court under Section 397 and 401 of Cr.P.C. 6. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner Sri. Shaijan C. George vehemently argued that the offence under Section 326 of IPC would not be attracted on the evidence available on record. I find some force in the said argument. In order to attract the offence under Section 326 of IPC, the accused should voluntarily cause grievous hurt by dangerous weapon or means. No doubt, MO1 is a dangerous weapon falls under Section 326 of IPC. The term “grievous hurt” has been defined under Section 320 of IPC. I find some force in the said argument. In order to attract the offence under Section 326 of IPC, the accused should voluntarily cause grievous hurt by dangerous weapon or means. No doubt, MO1 is a dangerous weapon falls under Section 326 of IPC. The term “grievous hurt” has been defined under Section 320 of IPC. According to the prosecution, the injuries sustained by PW1 falls within Clause 7. Clause 'seventhly' of Section 320 of IPC provides that a fracture or dislocation of a bone or tooth shall be designated as 'grievous hurt'. 7. The medical evidence consists of Exts.P5 and P7 treatment certificates and the oral testimony of the doctors who were examined as PW7 and PW9. Immediately after the incident, PW1 was taken to the Government Hospital Kasaragod and PW7 examined him and issued Ext.P5 wound certificate. Ext.P5 would show the following injuries: 1. Lacerated wound 8 cm long on top of head scalp deep. 2. Incised wound 1 cm long on lower lip. 3. Incised wound bone deep at the middle of left leg, 2 cm long. 8. It is not in dispute that the above injuries would not fall within the category of “grievous hurt” so as to attract Section 320 of IPC. According to the prosecution, PW7 referred PW1 to Government Wenlock Hospital, Mangalore suspecting head injury. It is also so stated in Ext.P5. Ext.P7 coupled with the evidence of PW9 would show that PW1 was treated by a doctor at Unity Health Complex, Mangalore after his treatment at Government Hospital, Kasaragod. Ext.P7 is the certificate styled as “Treatment Particulars” issued by the Health Officer-cum-Assistant Surgeon at Unity Health Complex, Mangalore. He was examined as PW9. Ext.P7 would show that PW1 had fracture on right maxilla with missing of teeth from upper jaw and lower jaw and another fracture to the mandible right side with missing of teeth. No doubt, if legally proved, the said injuries will fall within the category of “grievous hurt” so as to attract Section 320 of IPC. 9. The crucial question is whether the prosecution has legally proved that PW1 had sustained fracture to right maxilla and mandible. Ext.P7 is not a wound certificate nor is a treatment certificate issued by a doctor who treated PW1 at the Unity Health Complex, Mangalore. It is issued by a Health Officer-cum-Assistant Surgeon of the hospital. PW9 is not a Dental Surgeon. Ext.P7 is not a wound certificate nor is a treatment certificate issued by a doctor who treated PW1 at the Unity Health Complex, Mangalore. It is issued by a Health Officer-cum-Assistant Surgeon of the hospital. PW9 is not a Dental Surgeon. In Ext.P7, PW9 gives only the particulars of the treatment given to PW1 by the doctors who treated PW1 at the hospital. No where in Ext.P7 is it stated that PW9 had treated or at least examined PW1. But in chief examination, PW9 stated that on 8.3.1995 at 8 pm, he examined PW1 and found that he had sustained fractures mentioned in Ext.P7. But in cross examination, he categorically admitted that he did not treat PW1. He stated that he referred PW1 to Dr. Sharma, Dental Surgeon who treated him under general anesthesia. He further stated that PW1 was treated by Dr. Sharma and another Dr. Devadiga, Neuro Surgeon. Thus, the reading of PW9 would show that he did not treat PW1 at all. On a perusal of the case records, I could find a certificate issued by the dental surgeon Dr. Sharma who treated PW1. But that document was not tendered or marked in evidence. Without examining the Dental Surgeon who treated PW1, the contents stated in Ext.P7 issued by another doctor who did not treat PW1 cannot be relied on. In order to prove the fracture allegedly sustained by PW1, the Dental Surgeon who treated PW1 for the said fracture should be examined. It is pertinent to note that the specific defence of the accused is that PW1 lost his teeth prior to the incident due to a bike accident and he sustained damage to the artificial teeth used by him at the time of the incident. Great prejudice has been caused to the accused in not examining the Dental Surgeon concerned who treated PW1 to substantiate the above said defence version as rightly argued by the learned counsel for the accused/revision petitioners. 10. Even though the prosecution has failed to examine the doctor concerned, the materials on record prima facie disclose that PW1 has sustained fracture to his teeth in the incident. However, the said fact has not been legally established by examining the right person and producing the correct documents. 10. Even though the prosecution has failed to examine the doctor concerned, the materials on record prima facie disclose that PW1 has sustained fracture to his teeth in the incident. However, the said fact has not been legally established by examining the right person and producing the correct documents. Hence, I am of the view that interest of justice demands that the prosecution should be given an opportunity to examine the doctor concerned to prove its case. 11. As stated already, this Court is not supposed to re-appreciate the evidence in a revision petition. But, this is not a case of re-appreciation of evidence, but, this is a case where the courts below have taken into account the evidence by an incompetent person to convict the accused under Section 326 of IPC. The revisional power of this Court under Section 397 read with Section 401 of Cr.P.C. is wide, though need to be sparingly exercised in a fit case. The powers are inherent in nature to correct the judgments of the courts below which suffer from gross illegality. For the reasons stated above, I hold that the courts below has committed gross illegality in convicting the accused under Section 326 of IPC based on legally inadmissible evidence. Hence, the conviction and sentence passed by the courts below under Section 326 of IPC is liable to be set aside. The matter has to be remanded back to the trial court to reconsider the charge under Section 326 of IPC afresh. In the result, this Crl.R.P. is allowed in part. The conviction and sentence passed by both the courts below under Section 326 of IPC are set aside. The case is remanded back to the trial court for fresh disposal. The trial court shall give an opportunity to the prosecution to adduce further evidence to prove the nature of injuries sustained by PW1 in the incident. Needless to say, the defence shall also be given an opportunity to adduce defence evidence in this regard. Thereafter, the court below shall dispose of the case in accordance with law. The accused/revisions petitioners shall appear before the trial court on 25.11.2021.