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

2017 Supreme(Gau) 959

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI, ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH
MIR ALFAZ ALI, J.
Sri Nomal Bora Son of Late Abhiram Bora & Ors. – Petitioners
Versus
State of Assam – Opposite Party
Crl. Rev. P No.197 Of 2006
Decided On : 14-08-2017

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Ms. S Kanungoe (Amicus Curiae)
For the Respondents: Mr. PS Lahkar (Addl. PP, Assam)

In order to establish a charge under Section 324 IPC, the prosecution needs to prove the specific ingredients of the offence, and the court's decision is influenced by the interpretation of these legal provisions.

Headnote:

IPC - Conviction under Section 447/324/34 IPC - Section 324 IPC - [324] - Voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons or means - Whoever, except in the case provided for by Section 334, voluntarily causes hurt 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, or by means of fire or any heated substance, or by means of any poison or any corrosive substance, or by means of any explosive substance or by means of any substance which it is deleterious to the human body to inhale, to swallow, or to receive into the blood, or by means of any animal, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both. A plain reading of the provision of section 324 IPC makes it appears that in order to establish a charge under Section 324 IPC, the prosecution needs to prove the following ingredients of the offence. 1. Voluntarily causing hurt by means of any instrument for shooting, stabbing or cutting, 2. or any instrument which is used as a weapon of offence, is likely to cause death 3. by means of fire or any heated substance. 4. by means of any poison or any corrosive substance, 5. by means of any explosive substance which is deleterious to the human body to inhale, to swallow, or to receive into the blood, 6. by means of any animal. Therefore, evidently the injuries were not caused by any of the categories of weapon mentioned under Section 324 of the IPC. In absence of such evidence, that injuries were caused by the categories of weapon mentioned in the section 324 IPC, there cannot be any offence under Section 324 IPC.

Fact of the Case:

The revision petitioners were convicted under Section 447/324/34 IPC and preferred an appeal against the judgment of conviction and sentence by the Court of Sessions.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the injuries were not caused by any of the categories of weapon mentioned under Section 324 IPC, and therefore, there cannot be any offence under Section 324 IPC. The conviction under Section 447 IPC was upheld, but the sentence was modified to payment of fine.

Issues: Conviction under Section 324 IPC, reliance on testimony of prosecution witnesses, and modification of sentence.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the injuries were not caused by any of the categories of weapon mentioned under Section 324 IPC, and therefore, there cannot be any offence under Section 324 IPC. The conviction under Section 447 IPC was upheld based on the testimony of prosecution witnesses.

Final Decision: The revision petition was partly allowed, and the revision petitioners were directed to surrender before the learned trial Court and to pay the fine or in default to serve out the sentence.

JUDGMENT &ORDER :

1. Heard Ms. S Kanungoe, learned Amicus Curie and Mr. PS Lahkar, learned Addl. PP, Assam.

2. The revision petitioners were convicted under Section 447/324/34 IPC in GR Case No.545/2003 by learned SDJM, Biswanath Chariali and sentenced to imprisonment for 3 (three) months under section 447 and imprisonment for 1 (one) year under Section 324 IPC.

3. The revision petitioners preferred an appeal and the learned Sessions Judge upheld the conviction. However, modified the sentence reducing the term of imprisonment to 1 (one) month for the offence under Section 447 IPC and imprisonment for 6 (six) months under Section 324 IPC.

4. Aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and sentence by the Court of Sessions, the revision petitioner has preferred the instant appeal.

5. Learned Amicus Curiae submits that the evidence brought on record did not constitute any offence under Section 324 IPC and therefore, conviction of the accused persons under Section 324 IPC was illegal and required to be set-aside. It has also been contended by the learned Amicus Curiae, that all the witnesses examined by the prosecution were interested witness being relations of the injured and therefore, no reliance could be placed on the testimony of such witnesses. The learned Addl. PP contended that the evidence brought on record was sufficient to warrant conviction of the accused persons and therefore, conviction and sentence of the accused persons by the learned appellate Court requires no interference.

6. Section 324 IPC reads as under:

324. Voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons or means – Whoever, except in the case provided for by Section 334, voluntarily causes hurt 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, or by means of fire or any heated substance, or by means of any poison or any corrosive substance, or by means of any explosive substance or by means of any substance which it is deleterious to the human body to inhale, to swallow, or to receive into the blood, or by means of any animal, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.

7. A plain reading of the provision of section 324 IPC makes it appears that in order to establish a charge under Section 324 IPC, the prosecution needs to prove the following ingredients of the offence.

1. Voluntarily causing hurt by means of any instrument for shooting, stabbing or cutting,

2. or any instrument which is used as a weapon of offence, is likely to cause death

3. by means of fire or any heated substance.

4. by means of any poison or any corrosive substance,

5. by means of any explosive substance which is deleterious to the human body to inhale, to swallow, or to receive into the blood,

6. by means of any animal.

8. As per the medical evidence, PW-3 Lokeswar Borah sustained the following injuries:

(i). one lacerated injury over the right side of the scalp.

(ii). one lacerated injury over the left side of the face.

(iii). one lacerated injury on the left hand, over the left index finger,

(iv). one lacerated injury on the left forearm.

9. PW-4 Aruna Bora sustained the following injuries:

(i). tenderness present over the chest.

(ii). tenderness present over left side of lower abdomen.

(iii). scratch injury present over the left side of the face.

10. Pw-6 Upen Bora sustained the following injuries:

(i). scratch injury over the forehead.

(ii). tenderness with swelling present over the right side of the scalp.

(iii). tenderness with swelling present over the left arm. all the injuries were caused by blunt weapon as per the doctor.

11. Therefore, evidently the injuries were not caused by any of the categories of weapon mentioned under Section 324 of the IPC. In absence of such evidence, that injuries were caused by the categories of weapon mentioned in the section 324 IPC, there cannot be any offence under Section 324 IPC. The evidence brought







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
whatsapp-icon Back to top