Back
2017 Supreme(SC) 533
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
KURIAN JOSEPH, R. BANUMATHI, JJ.
SHAJI - Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF KERALA & ANR. - Respondents
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 808 OF 2017 [@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRL.) 9390 OF 2015]
Decided on : 28-04-2017.
The nature of injuries and the weapon used are crucial factors in determining the appropriate section of the Indian Penal Code for conviction.
Headnote:
Section 326 IPC - Conviction altered to Section 325 IPC - The court altered the conviction from Section 326 to Section 325 of the Indian Penal Code based on the nature of injuries and the weapon used.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant was convicted under Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code for voluntarily causing grievous hurt using a weapon.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that based on the evidence and the nature of injuries, the conviction should have been under Section 325 IPC instead of Section 326 IPC. The court also allowed the application for compounding the offence and limited the sentence to the period already undergone.
Issues: Conviction under Section 326 IPC, application for compounding the offence.
Ratio Decidendi: The nature of injuries and the weapon used for inflicting such injuries influenced the court's decision to alter the conviction to Section 325 IPC.
Final Decision: The conviction was altered to Section 325 IPC, and the application for compounding the offence was allowed, limiting the sentence to the period already undergone.
Based on the provided legal document, the key points are:
-
The appellant was initially convicted under Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code for voluntarily causing grievous hurt using a weapon (!) (!) .
-
The court examined the nature of injuries and the weapon used, which led to a reconsideration of the appropriate section of the IPC for conviction (!) (!) .
-
The court found that the evidence did not sufficiently establish the use of a weapon likely to cause death, which is a requirement for conviction under Section 326 IPC. Therefore, the conviction was altered to Section 325 IPC, which pertains to causing hurt but not necessarily grievous hurt with a weapon likely to cause death (!) (!) .
-
The application for the offence to be compounded was allowed, and the sentence was limited to the period already undergone (!) .
-
The decision emphasized that the nature of injuries and the weapon used are crucial factors in determining the appropriate section for conviction, and the court's modification of the conviction reflects this principle (!) .
-
The appeal was disposed of with the above directions, including the alteration of the conviction and the limitation of the sentence (!) .
These points summarize the court’s reasoning and final decision regarding the conviction and sentencing in this case.
JUDGMENT :
KURIAN, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. On 30.10.2015, this Court passed the following order :-
“The application for impleadment is allowed.
Learned senior counsel for the petitioner contends, that the petitioner has been convicted under Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code. It is the contention of the learned senior counsel for the petitioner, that for conviction under Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code, it is imperative for the prosecution to establish firstly, that the accused is guilty of voluntarily having caused grievous hurt, and secondly, the grievous hurt should have been caused “...by means of any instrument for shooting, stabbing or cutting, or any instrument which, used as a weapon of offence, is likely to cause death...” It is the contention of the learned senior counsel for the petitioner, that the prosecution has not been able to establish the second ingredient of the offence under Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code.
Delay condoned.
Issue notice to the respondent-State of Kerala, returnable after two weeks. Liberty is granted to the learned counsel for the petitioner to effect service on the standing counsel for the State of Kerala nominated for this Court.
Mr. Zulfiker Ali P.S., learned counsel, enters appearance on behalf of the newly added respondent and accepts notice.”
3. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and the State. We have also heard the de-facto complainant, who is the additional respondent. Having regard to the peculiar facts of this case and the evidence available on record and in particular, the nature of injuries and the weapon used for inflicting such injuries, we are of the view that this is a case where the conviction should have been only under Section 325 IPC. Therefore, the conviction is altered to one under Section 325 IPC.
4. The appellant has filed an application for compounding the offence. The application is allowed. Since the conviction has been compounded, the sentence is limited to the period already undergone.
5. With the above observations and directions, the appeal is disposed of.
