The use of an umbrella for inflicting harm can be considered a dangerous weapon based on intent, affirming prosecution's prima facie case.

ORDER

Order dated 24.04.2019 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Kolencherry, dismissing the petition for discharge filed by the accused in C.C.No.1097/2016 on the files of the said court, is under challenge in this revision petition.

2. The prosecution case is that on 20.08.2016, the petitioner wrongfully restrained the defacto complainant and inflicted hurt upon him with an umbrella, causing injuries. Accordingly, the accused has been charge-sheeted by the Sub Inspector of Police, Kunnathunadu, for the commission of offences under Sections 341 and 324 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 .

3. The petitioner filed C.M.P.No.928/2019 before the learned Magistrate, seeking discharge, contending that a false case has been foisted against him. According to the petitioner, the injuries suffered by the defacto complainant did not correspond to the alleged acts attributed to the petitioner. The learned Magistrate, after considering the aforesaid contentions, and evaluating the documents on record, found that the prosecution records would prima facie bring out the act of the petitioner wrongfully restraining the defacto complainant, and hitting him with an umbrella, which could be used as a dangerous weapon. With the above observation, the discharge petition filed by the petitioner was dismissed by the learned Magistrate.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor representing the State of Kerala.

5. It is argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the alleged weapon used by the petitioner is a three fold umbrella, and that it could never be considered as a dangerous weapon, coming within the purview of Section 324 IPC . It is further argued that there is another case relating to the physical assault committed upon the petitioner at the instance of the defacto complainant and others, which would reveal that the case on hand is a false case.

6. It is not possible to accept the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the umbrella used by the petitioner to inflict hurt upon the defacto complainant, cannot be termed as a dangerous weapon.

7. As far as the present case is concerned, the charge against the petitioner is that he had hit the defacto complainant with the aforesaid umbrella, resulting in injuries, leading to the hospitalisation of the defacto complainant.

8. It is true that the umbrella cannot be termed as a dangerous weapon, but the fact remains that it could be used as a dangerous weapon, depending on the intention of the offender. Therefore, the learned Magistrate cannot be found to be at fault, for declining to accept the argument in the above regard. So also, the question whether there existed another case relating to the physical assault upon the petitioner herein, at the instance of the defacto complainant and others, cannot be taken into account while deciding the point whether the prosecution records are capable of bringing home the offences alleged in this case.

9. The contention of the petitioner that this case has been foisted as an act of reprisal to the other case, in which the petitioner is said to have been assaulted, could be raised at the appropriate stage during the course of Trial as a defence.

10. At any rate, it is not possible to accept the aforesaid contention as a reason to hold that the charge against the petitioner is groundless. On going through the Final Report and accompanying records, it is seen that the Investigating Agency had garnered the requisite materials, to prima facie show that the petitioner has committed the offences under Sections 341 and 324 IPC . That being so, it is not possible to reverse the findings of the learned Magistr