SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2001 Supreme(SC) 911

K.T.THOMAS, R.P.SETHI, V.N.KHARE, ASHOK BHAN
SHAKEEL AHMED – Appellant
Versus
STATE, DELHI – Respondent


ORDER

1.Leave granted.

2. The appellant stands convicted under Section 326 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Injuries, no doubt, are grievous as the phalanx of the index finger has been snipped off. But the allegation is that the assailant had bitten the index finger and caused the said injury. Teeth of human being cannot be considered as deadly weapon as per the description of deadly weapon enumerated under Section 326 IPC. Hence the offence cannot escalate to Section 326. It can best remain only at Section 325 IPC. We, therefore, alter the conviction to Section 325 IPC read with Section 34 IPC.


3. The said change of the count of offence warrants change of the quantum of sentence also. In the interest of justice we deem it necessary to imposesentence of rigorous imprisonment for period of 6 months besides fine of Rs 10,000. The sentence is accordingly modified. If he defaults in payment of fine he shall undergo imprisonment for further period of three months. In case the fine amount is realised the victim shall be paid sum of Rs 8000 out of the said fine amount. The trial court shall see that the said amount is paid to the injured in case the fine amount is realised f

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top