The considered whether the chief magistrate erred by holding that the offence allegedly committed amounted to grievous harm. The court held that the cutting off of another’s fingers amounted to grievous harm.
The court then considered whether the magistrate did not evaluate the evidence adduced by the appellant. The court held that the trial court properly evaluated the evidence and the court found that the complainant was incapable of attacking the appellant by being in well and the evidence showed that the appellant had inflicted injury on the complainant.
In considering whether the sentence imposed on the accused was excessive, the court held that the sentence of one year was not excessive.
The court consequently dismissed the appeal.