Back
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
SASIKUMAR, S/O. AYYAPPAN, – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA, – Respondent
CRL.A/768/2005
IPC - Assault - IPC Section List - The court reviewed the applicability of IPC Sections 324 and 326, clarifying the definitions of grievous hurt and the relevance of injury classifications in determining culpability and sentencing, ultimately confirming a conviction under Section 324 while overturning the conviction under Section 326.
Fact of the Case:
The appellants were accused of physically assaulting two individuals, causing injuries during a property dispute. They were initially charged under multiple sections of the IPC, including grievous hurt, but contested the validity of the accusations and evidence presented.
Finding of the Court:
The trial court's conviction under Section 326 IPC was found unjustified as the injuries did not meet the definition of grievous hurt, while the conviction under Section 324 IPC was upheld based on corroborated witness testimony.
Issues: Whether the appellants committed offenses under Sections 324 and 326 of the IPC, particularly concerning the degree of injuries sustained by the victims.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that absence of grievous hurt, as defined under IPC Section 320, negated the conviction under Section 326, affirming convictions should reflect actual injury classifications.
Final Decision: Conviction under Section 326 IPC set aside; upheld conviction under Section 324 IPC with revised sentencing.
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 30th day of October 2020 ...
The appellants are the 1st and 2nd accused in Sessions Case No.256 of 2004 on the file of the Additional Sessions Judge (Adhoc)I, Kottayam.
2. The above case is charge sheeted by the Sub Inspector of Police, Erattupetta police station against the appellants and another alleging offences punishable under Sections 341,323,324,326,308 r/w.
Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code ( IPC ).
3. The prosecution case is that on 13.1.2004 at about 12.30 p.m., the accused in prosecution of their common intention to wreck vengeance against CW1 and CW2 wrongfully restrained them at the courtyard of the house bearing door number 49 in Ward No.VIII of Thalanadu panchayat. It is the further case of the prosecution that, the first accused brandished CW1 and CW2 with a chopper causing grievous hurt to CW1 and CW2. It is alleged that, the appellants and the other accused committed the offence under Sections
341,323,324,326,308 r/w.section 34 IPC .
4. To substantiate the case, the prosecution examined nine witnesses. Exhibits P1 to P7 are the documents marked on the side of the prosecution.
5. After going through the evidence and documents, the trial court found that, the accused are not guilty under section 308 IPC . The 3rd accused was also not found guilty of the offences charged against her. The 1st and 2nd accused were found guilty of the offences punishable under sections 324 and 326 r/w. section 34 . The 1st accused is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- under section 326 and rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- under section 324 . The 2nd accused is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.2,500/-under section 326 and rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- under section 324 . In default of payment of fine, the 1st accused is directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and that of the 2nd accused for three months.
6. Aggrieved by the conviction and sentence, this Crl.Appeal is filed.
7. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned public prosecutor.
8. The counsel for the appellants submitted that, the entire allegations against the appellants are false. The counsel submitted that, the evidence of PW4 and PW6 are not reliable. The counsel submitted that, the incident is not happened as alleged by the prosecution. The counsel also submitted that, actually PW4 and PW6 were trying to evict the 2nd accused from the house. At that time, the 1st accused intervened. The counsel submitted that, the appellants were only acting in defence and there is absolutely no criminal act on the side of the appellants. The counsel submitted that, there is only the evidence of PW4 and PW6 and their evidence is not corroborated by any independent evidence. The counsel submitted that, the medical evidence is also contrary to the oral evidence adduced by these witnesses. Moreover, the counsel submitted that, even if the entire allegations are accepted, no grievous hurt is caused to either PW4 or PW6. The counsel submitted that, the trial court erred in convicting the appellants under Section 326 IPC . The counsel also submitted that, the weapon allegedly used in this case is not recovered.
9. The learned public prosecutor submitted that, PW4 and PW6 are the injured witnesses in this case. This Court need not disbelieve their evidence because their evidence is reliable. The public prosecutor submitted that, the evidence of PW4 and PW6 is corroborated by the medical evidence adduced by PW1 and PW2.
10. The point for consideration in this case is whether the appellants committed the offence under Section 326 and 324 r/w. Section 34 IPC ?
11. To attract the offence under Section 326 IPC , grievous hurt is necessary. Section 320 defines grievous hurt which is extracted hereunder:
“320.Grievous hurt:
The following kinds of hurt only are de
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
