(c) If it is caused by a wound which penetrates into one of the cavities of the body without producing any of the effects mentioned in Section 232

Responsibility for the offence will not abate merely because the deformity or the disfigurement might have been eliminated or reduced by some special treatment, e. g., plastic surgery, or in some other way, e.g., artificial denture or a glass eye. Nor does responsibility abate because the deformity or the disfigurement may be concealed by the hair, or the beard, or by a veil or in some other manner. In all these cases, the fact of the deformity or disfigurement is left and the nexus of the causality with the act of the offender remains unaffected.

(c) If it is caused by a wound which penetrates into one of the cavities of the body without producing any of the effects mentioned in Section 232.

The cavities of the body to which reference is here made are the abdominal, the thoracic and the cranial. The mere fact of penetration of the wound, without requiring that the wound shall have actually produced serious permanent harm, shall be sufficient. The mere possibility of such more serious effects arising from any such wound, affecting vital parts of the body, has been considered sufficient by the law to make the injury in itself grievous.

(d) If it causes any mental or physical infirmity lasting for a period of thirty days or more; or if the party injured is incapacitated, for a like period, from attending his occupation.

The system of making the gravity of the injury depend on the duration of the infirmity was criticized by noted jurists. The main objection taken is that such criterion makes the matter of a day or a few hours of difference decisive and productive of an enormous difference in punishment. Moreover, the duration of the infirmity is not a true criterion to judge the seriousness of an injury which varies in gravity rather according to the part of the body where it is produced. It would have been better, according to these jurists, if each case were left to be assessed by experts, than to fix a hard and fast rule which, in the last resort, is founded only on a presumption.

While these theoretical objections cannot undoubtedly be brushed aside, it has appeared to the legislatures which have included such provision in their codes, that the said criterion is a practical and convenient one. It provides an easily ascertainable standard which is better than mere conjectures or hypotheses. Moreover, having