1. Appeal against conviction for causing hurt using bamboo sticks and wooden logs — determination of appropriate charge under Sections 307, 326, 325, or 324 of the IPC. (Para 3 , 6 )
Back
Next 
2025 Supreme(SC) 1614
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Dipankar Datta and Manmohan, JJ.
Jamser Ali And Another – Appellant
Versus
State Of West Bengal
Criminal Appeal No.1046 of 2025 [Arising Out of SLP (Crl.) No. 14343 of 2024]
Decided on : 03-03-2025
Important Points
The Court held that where weapons used are not clearly 'dangerous' under Section 326 IPC, but the injury causes hospitalization for 20 days, it constitutes 'grievous hurt' under Section 320 IPC, justifying conviction under Section 325 IPC instead of Section 326 IPC.
Subject
Criminal Law - Appeal and Sentencing
Act Referred
Headnote
(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 307, 326, and 325 - Criminal appeal against conviction for attempt to murder - High Court set aside conviction under Section 307, IPC; convicted under Section 326, IPC but the Supreme Court finds doubt on weapon's nature for dangerousness and substitutes conviction to Section 325, IPC for grievous hurt. (Paras 3, 8, 11)
(B) Criminal Procedure - Appeal against sentence - Consideration of sentence duration already served; custodial period deemed sufficient, appeal allowed with modified sentencing reflecting the time already undergone. (Paras 12, 13)
Facts of the case:
The appellants were convicted for offences under IPC sections for assaulting a victim with bamboo sticks, leading to significant injuries and hospitalization, with issues raised as to the appropriateness of weapon classification.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the right conviction should be under Section 325 for grievous hurt rather than Section 326, and sentenced the appellants to the time already served along with the imposition of a fine.
Issues: The key issue was whether the evidence warranted a conviction under Section 324 instead of Section 326, given doubts about the classification of the weapons used.
Ratio Decidendi: The court decided that the evidence did not support a conviction for the higher charge due to uncertainties about weapon classification, with the necessary downgrade reflecting the nature of injuries inflicted.
Result: Appeal allowed; conviction modified, sentence adjusted accordingly.
(B) Criminal Procedure - Appeal against sentence - Consideration of sentence duration already served; custodial period deemed sufficient, appeal allowed with modified sentencing reflecting the time already undergone. (Paras 12, 13)
Facts of the case:
The appellants were convicted for offences under IPC sections for assaulting a victim with bamboo sticks, leading to significant injuries and hospitalization, with issues raised as to the appropriateness of weapon classification.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the right conviction should be under Section 325 for grievous hurt rather than Section 326, and sentenced the appellants to the time already served along with the imposition of a fine.
Issues: The key issue was whether the evidence warranted a conviction under Section 324 instead of Section 326, given doubts about the classification of the weapons used.
Ratio Decidendi: The court decided that the evidence did not support a conviction for the higher charge due to uncertainties about weapon classification, with the necessary downgrade reflecting the nature of injuries inflicted.
Result: Appeal allowed; conviction modified, sentence adjusted accordingly.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Whether the High Court erred in convicting the appellants under Section 326, IPC instead of the lesser offence under Section 324, IPC. (Para 4 )
3. Lack of evidence regarding weapon size and lethality creates doubt as to whether they constitute dangerous weapons under Section 326, IPC. (Para 7 , 8 )
4. Hospitalization for more than twenty days constitutes grievous hurt under the eighth kind of hurt defined in Section 320, IPC, justifying conviction under Section 325, IPC. (Para 10 )
5. Conviction modified to Section 325, IPC; sentence reduced to period already undergone and payment of fine. (Para 11 , 13 , 15 )
6. When is a weapon considered dangerous for conviction under Section 326, IPC?
A weapon must be likely to cause death to be classified as a dangerous weapon. If evidence is unclear regarding the size, weight, or lethality of the instrument used, conviction under Section 326, IPC cannot be sustained. (Para 7 , 8 )
7. Does prolonged hospitalization constitute grievous hurt under the IPC?
Yes, if a victim is in severe bodily pain or unable to follow ordinary pursuits for twenty days, it satisfies the eighth kind of hurt under Section 320, IPC, constituting grievous hurt punishable under Section 325, IPC. (Para 10 )
ORDER :
1. Leave granted.
2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated May 07, 2024 [impugned order] passed by a learned Judge of the High Court at Calcutta.
3. While disposing of a criminal appeal [Crl. Appeal No.222 of 2001] under Section 374(2), Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 carried by the appellants from the relevant Sessions Court's judgment of conviction for commission of offences punishable under Section 307 read with Section 34 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE , 1860 [IPC] and order on sentence whereby they were sentenced to seven years of rigorous imprisonment plus fine of Rs.500/- each, the High Court, for the reasons assigned in the impugned order, was of the view that the conviction of the appellants under Section 307 , IPC is not sustainable and as a consequence, the High Court set aside the conviction under Section 307 , IPC; however, it convicted the appellants under Section 326 , IPC read with Section 34 thereof and sentenced them to three years' rigorous imprisonment.
4. Notice was issued on the special leave petition, out of which this appeal arises, as to whether the High Court should have convicted the appellants under Section 324 , IPC instead of Section 326 thereof.
5. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the evidence on record.
6. There is evidence on record attributing the injuries inflicted on the victim (PW-9) to the appellants. For infliction of injury, bamboo sticks and a 'battam', i.e., a wooden log, were used as the weapons of offence by the appellants. The victim suffered a head injury, whereupon he was taken to the local primary health center. Two stitches were administered by the doctor at such centre. The victim himself deposed that he did not name the appellants as his assailants before the said doctor. The victim was later on referred to the sub-divisional hospital; there also, he did not disclose to the doctor attending on him (PW-11) that the appellants were the assailants. It appears from the evidence of PW-11 that the victim had disclosed of having suffered the head injury as a result of physical assault.
7. Considering the nature of evidence tendered before the relevant Sessions Court, it is not too clear as to what were the sizes of the weapons of offence and how heavy they were; also, it is unclear as to whether they were instruments which, used as weapons of offence, were likely to cause death. Thus, it is doubtful as to whether such weapons would constitute "dangerous weapons" within the meaning of Section 326 , IPC.
8. There being such doubt as to whether the weapons used were dangerous, conviction of the appellants under Section 326 , IPC cannot, therefore, be sustained and benefit of lesser offence seems to be justified on facts and in the circumstances.
9. We are of the considered view that there was sufficient material on record for which the High Court would have been justified if, instead of Section 326 , IPC, it were to proceed to convict the appellants for the offence punishable under Section 325 thereof.
10. PW-11 had testified that as a result of the injury suffered by the victim, he had to be hospitalized; while the victim was admitted on 31st August, 1994, he was discharged after for more than 20 (twenty) days' hospitalization on 22nd September, 1994. One can reasonably presume that as a result of the hurt suffered by the victim, he was in bodily pain for all these days and unable to follow his ordinary pursuits. In view of Section 320 , IPC, the same answers the eighth kind of hurt and constituting 'grievous hurt' as it does, the appellants cannot escape conviction thereunder.
11. In such view of the matter, we convict the appellants for the offence punishable under Section 325 , IPC.
12. Turning to the question of sentence, we find that the incident of offence dates back to 26th August, 1994. We are informed that the appellants have spent six months in custody and that they have not been involved in any other offence since then.
13. Hav
