048-NLR-NLR-V-56-D.-H.-EKMON-Appellant-and-B.W.-SUGATHADASA-Inspector-of-Police-Respondent.pdf
DE SILVA J.—Etcmon v. Sugathadasa
191
1954
Present : de Silva J.D. H. EKMON, Appellant, and B. W. SUGATHADASA (Inspector ofof Police), Respondent
S. C. 679—M. C. Bala/pitiya, 8,410
Grievous hurt—“ Potential danger to life ”—Not the same thing as endangering life—Penal Code, ss. 311, 317.
An injury which causes “ a potential danger to life ” is not grievous hurt withinthe meaning of sootion 311 of the Penal Code.
yVl'l’KAL from a judgment of the Magistrate’s Court, Balapitiya.
K. C. de Silva, with M. L. de Silva, for tho accused appellant,a
M. Kanagasunderam, Crown Counsel, for the Attorney-General.October 22, 1954. de Silva J.—
In Ibis case tho accused appellant was charged with causing grievoushurL to one Piyaratne by stabbing him on the left side of his chest with aknife, an offence punishable under section 317 of the Penal Code. Aftertrial tho learned Magistrate, who tried the case in his capacity as AdditionalDistrict Judge, found the accused guilty of tho charge and convicted himand sentenced him to one year's rigorous imprisonment, and also orderedhim, under section 80 of the Criminal Procedure Code, to enter into abond in a sum of Rs. 250/250 to keep the peace for a period of six months.
Mr. K. C. de Silva, who appears for the appellant, contends that thoprosooution has failed to establish the charge of grievous hurt, lie refersto tho medical oviden.ee. The doctor has stated that the injury was1 j" long and that the knife had entered the chest cavity. He describedtho injury as being grievous but he proceeded to state further that theinjury brought about “ a potential danger to life ”. This injury hadnot caused any damage to any vital organ. In the circumstances of thiscase it could have been grievous only if it endangered life. A “ potential ”danger to life is not the same thing as endangering lifo. For the injury tobe regarded as grievous the injured person’s life should have been in factin danger. The word “potential”, according to tho Oxford Dictionary,means " capable of coming into being or action ” or “ in possibility notin fact ”. The mere possibility fff this injury Injcoiniixg a danger to lifoat a later stage is not sufficient to base a charge under section 317 of thePenal Code in respect of that injury. It is clear from the evidence ofthe doctor that at no stage did this injury in fact endanger the man’s life.There was only a possibility of his life being in danger. That possibilitywas not realised. Accordingly the conviction under section 317 must beset aside.
192
DE SILVA J.—Elcmon v. Sugathadasa
There is not the slightest doubt that the appellant in fact inflicted theinjury in question. Accordingly, I alter the conviction to one undersection 315 of the Penal Code and sentence him to six months’ rigorousimprisonment, and also direct him under section 80 of the CriminalProcedure Code to enter into a bond in a sum of Rs. 250/250 to keep thopeace for a period of six months after the sentence of imprisonment liasbeen served. Subject to this variation the appeal is dismissed.
Conviction altered.