Back
2020 Supreme(Online)(KER) 45650
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
N.ANIL KUMAR, J
MINI – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
Crl.Rev.Pet/1678/2008
SRI.N.P.PRAJEESH SRI.VIVEK VENUGOPAL
The absence of evidence linking the accused to the crime resulted in the court ruling against the conviction for grievous and simple hurt under IPC.
Headnote:
Criminal Law - IPC - Sections 323, 326, 320 - Court's decision based on insufficient evidence to establish grievous hurt.
Fact of the Case:
The case arose from an incident in a bus where the de facto complainant was allegedly assaulted by the accused parties. The trial court convicted the accused under Section 326 of IPC but the accused challenged the conviction, claiming insufficient evidence of grievous hurt.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the prosecution did not present adequate evidence to support the allegations of grievous hurt under Section 326 or even simple hurt under Section 323, particularly concerning the 3rd accused, leading to her acquittal.
Issues: Whether the evidence presented was sufficient to sustain a conviction under Sections 323 and 326 of IPC against the accused, particularly the 3rd accused.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need for specific evidence corroborating the claims of grievous hurt as defined under Section 320 of IPC, noting that absence of such evidence led to the acquittal of the 3rd accused.
Final Decision: The conviction and sentence against the 3rd accused were set aside, and she was acquitted of all charges.
ORDER
This revision petition is directed against the judgment in Crl.A.No.868/2006 of the Sessions Court, Ernakulam. By common judgment dated 11.10.2007, the learned First Additional Sessions Judge, Ernakulam confirmed the conviction and sentence imposed by the learned Judicial First Class Magistrate-II, Ernakulam in C.C.No.1613/1999. While confirming the conviction under Section 326 of IPC , the sentence imposed by the learned Magistrate was set aside and accused 1 and 3 were sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- each in default to undergo simple imprisonment for two months for the offence punishable under read with Section 34 of .
2. By judgment dated 29.9.2006, the learned trial Magistrate convicted and sentenced A1 and A3 to undergo simple imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- each in default to undergo simple imprisonment for two months more for the offence punishable under Section 326 of IPC . Pending proceedings, A2 died. Hence case against A2 stood abated.
3. Challenging the judgment of the learned Magistrate, the 1st and the 3rd accused preferred separate appeals. The 1st accused preferred Crl.A.No.856/2006 and the 3rd accused preferred Crl.A.No.868/2006 respectively. Both the appeals were heard together and a common judgment was passed.
4. The prosecution case is that, on 29.6.1999 at about
4.15 pm, when the de facto complainant entered into the bus bearing registration No.KEF 6292 and when the bus reached at Kadavanthra, he sat on a general seat where the revision petitioner was seated at the other portion of that seat. While so, it is alleged that the revision petitioner abused the de facto complainant and when the bus stopped at Elamkulam, the revision petitioner went outside the bus, and invited A1 and A2 to the bus and all of them rushed into the bus and dragged the de facto complainant outside the bus and assaulted him. It is further alleged that A1 made cut injuries at the right side of the chest, left calf portion of the leg, left thigh and left side of the anus whereby the de facto complainant sustained hurt which caused the sufferer to be during the space of 20 days in severe bodily pain and unable to follow his ordinary pursuits.
5. Heard Sri.N.P.Prajeesh, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Smt.M.N.Maya, the learned Public Prosecutor for the respondents.
6. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that offence under Section 326 of IPC is prima facie not attracted in this case. With reference to Section 320 of the , the learned counsel for the revision petitioner contended that the prosecution has not succeeded in proving that the de facto complainant has sustained the hurt which endangers life or which causes the sufferer to be during the space of 20 days in severe bodily pain or unable to follow his ordinary pursuits.
Section 320 of the IPC reads as follows:-
“320. Grievous hurt The following kinds of hurt only are designated as “grievous”-
First-Emasculation.
Secondly-Permanent privation of the sight of either eye.
Thirdly-Permanent privation of the hearing of either ear.
Fourthly- Privation of any member or joint.
Fifthly- Destruction or permanent impairing of the powers of any member or joint.
Sixthly-Permanent disfiguration of the head or face.
Seventhly-Fracture or dislocation of a bone or tooth.
Eighthly-Any hurt which endangers life or which causes the sufferer to be during the space of twenty days in severe bodily pain, or unable to follow his ordinary pursuits.”
7. Going by Section 320 of IPC , it is clear that there must be some specific hurt, voluntarily inflicted, and coming within any of the eight kinds enumerated under of in order to make out an offence under of .
8. Ext.P1 wound certificate would show that PW1 sustained the following injuries:-
“1. Stab wound on the right side of lower chest laterally 3.5 x 1 cm.
2. Incised wound on the left calf 6x2 cm.
3. Incised wound on the left th
