Back
HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
P.N. GOEL, J.
Ram Nayan - Appellant
Versus
State - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 464 of 1976
Decided on : Sep 04, 1980
IPC - Section 324 - Voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons or means - Lathi not covered - Conviction under Section 324 set aside.
Fact of the Case:
Appellants were convicted under Sections 324 and 323 IPC for assaulting the complainant with a lathi and fists, causing simple injuries. The trial court held that the use of a lathi as a weapon of offense could fall under Section 324 IPC, as it is an instrument likely to cause death.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court held that the trial court's interpretation of Section 324 IPC was incorrect. A lathi, in its ordinary use, is not an instrument likely to cause death and therefore does not fall within the ambit of Section 324 IPC. The court also noted that the injuries caused to the complainant were simple and did not indicate an intention to cause death.
Issues: Whether a lathi can be considered an instrument likely to cause death under Section 324 IPC.
Ratio Decidendi: The court interpreted Section 324 IPC in light of its object, scope, and heading, and concluded that the section applies to instruments that are inherently dangerous to life or likely to cause death. A lathi, in its ordinary use, does not fall within this category.
Final Decision: The High Court set aside the appellants' conviction under Section 324 IPC and reduced their sentence under Section 323 IPC to a fine.
P.N. Goel, J.
1. Ram Nayan, Neur and Raksha, brothers interse, residents of mohalla Kailashpati, police station Kotwali, district Basti have been convicted for the offences punishable under sections 324 and 323 IPC. Raksha has been convicted under sections 324 and 323/34 IPC. RAM Nayan and Neur have been convicted under sections 324/34 and 323/34 IPC.
2. The case of the prosecution briefly stated was : Yakub PW 2 carried on a motor garage under the style Punjab Auto Engineering Works in mohalla Pilkaura in the town of Basti. There were some houses close to the garage. Yakub had filed a suit for ejectment of his tenants. The appellants claimed that they were the owners of the house property in question. Therefore, there were strained relations between the appellants on one side and Yakub on the other. On 30-6-1973 Yakub was getting a wall near his garage constructed by some labourers in the morning. At about 9 a.m. Raksha assaulted him with a lathi and Ram Nayan and Neur assaulted him with fists and kicks. Yakub received injuries. The lathi of Raksha fell on the head of Yakub .
Yakub lodged a report of the occurrence at 12. 10 hours at police station Kotwali. Dr. O. P. Khattri PW 5, examined Yakub and found following injuries: (Injuries quoted-Editor)
3. Injuries nos. 1 and 2 were simple. Injury no. 3 was kept under observation. It apperas that nothing particular was found later on in respect of injury no. 3.
4. The appellants did not admit the allegations of the prosecution.
The prosecution examined Dharam Raj, Yakub and Ram Harash to prove its case. The learned 2nd Additional Sessions judge, Basti, believed the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and convicted the appellants.
5. Parties counsel have been heard and record examined.
6. Learned counsel for the appellants died not assail the finding of the trial Judge in respect of the occurrence.
He firstly urged that the appellants could not be convicted under sections 324 and 324/34 IPC. The learned trial Judge has found them guilty of the offence under section 324 IPC because section 324 IPC also punishes the person who uses "any instrument which, used as a weapon of offence, is likely to cause death". The learned trial judge has observed that if a lathi is used as a weapon of offence, the offence can be covered by section 324 IPC. He has assigned two reasons for the view (1) Word "instrument" in section 324, according to its dictionary meaning, means an implement or tool for committing an offence and (2) a Lathi if realised with its full fledged impact would cause the instantaneous death of a person and as such words "likely to cause death" in section 324 will be answered.
7. So far as the first reason is concerned, there is no dispute. But the second reason does not envisage a usual user of a lathi as a weapon of attack. This reason envisages a special contingency.
8. It is well established that the words of a statute should, prima facie, be given their ordinary meaning. But to arrive at the real meaning, it is necessary to get an exact conception of the aim, scope and object of the whole Act. The true meaning of any passage is to be found not merely in the words of the passage, but in comparing it with other parts of the law. Construction is to be made of all the parts together, and not of one part only by itself, because the true meaning of any passage is that which best harmonises with every other passage of the statute. It may also be indicated that heading or marginal notes of a section, though it forms no part of the section, is also of some assistance.
Relevant provisions of the Code (Indian Penal Code) may now be examined. Section 319 defines the word 'hurt' in the following words :
"319. Whoever causes bodily pain, disease or infirmity to any person is said to cause hurt."
9. Section 321 defines expression "voluntarily causing hurt'' as "whoever does any act with the intention of thereby causing hurt to any person, or with the knowledge that he is likely th
AI
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
