Grievous hurt caused by blunt weapons like Lathi falls under Section 325 IPC, not Section 326 IPC.

This is a Revision by which the petitioner is questioning an order of framing of charge.

2. Counsel for the applicants contends that as per the First Information Report lodged against the present applicants vide F.I.R No. 462 on 27.7.2019 it was alleged that when the complainant along with his two sons as well as son- in-law came to Durga Mandir, Lalghati Chouraha, they were assaulted with with 10 to 12 persons with Belt, Lathi and also fist blows.

3. It is contended by the counsel that the entire charge-sheet nowhere reflects that any of the accused persons were carrying any sharp edged weapon. It is also contended by the counsel that in the present case, injured Girish Devnani sustained a fracture of left radius and ulna. The said injury according to prosecution was caused by hard and blunt object. It is thus contended by the counsel that as the Lathi cannot be brought within the ambit of Section 326 of Indian Penal Code, a charge under Section 326 I.P.C could not have been framed against the present applicant. It is further contended by the counsel that as per the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Mohindar Singh v. State (Delhi Administration) ( AIR 1986 SC 309 ), the order of framing of charge is unsustainable. The counsel has also placed reliance on an order dated 5.8.2016 passed by this Court in CRR 1754/2016 Manik Rao Yavle v. The State of Madhya Pradesh ( CRR 1754/2016 ) and also on order dated 11.9.2023 in Criminal Appeal No. 4177 of 2023 - Raju and others v. State of Madhya Pradesh. 4. Per contra counsels for the State as well as respondent No. 2 have opposed the prayer and submitted that the Revision deserves to be dismissed.

it is contended by the counsels that the present applicants inflicted grievous injuries on the person of the injured. The injuries were dangerous to life and and hence the charge under Section 326 was rightly framed by the Trial Court and accordingly the order of framing charge do not require any interference.

5. Heard submissions and perused the record.

6. The record reflects that there is allegation that the present applicants were carrying Belt and Lathis and they inflicted injuries. The injuries which were sustained by Nitesh Bhambani, Jitesh Bhambani and Ramesh Bambhani were simple in nature. However, one of the injured Girish Devnani sustained an fracture in ulna and the said injury was found to be grievous in nature. It is undisputed that in the present case no sharp weapon was used. The injuries were inflicted with Belt and Lathis. This aspect of the matter was taken note of by the Apex Court in the case of Mohinder Singh (Supra) and the Apex Court concluded that the grievous hurt caused by a blunt weapon like Lathi would fall within the ambit of Section 325 of I.P.C and not under Section 326 I.P.C. This aspect of the matter was considered by this Court in the case of Raju @ Govind (Supra and this Court held in paragraphs 17 and 18 as under:

17. In Mohinder Singh vs State (Delhi Administration) reported in AIR 1986 SC 309 it is held that grievous hurt caused by blunt weapon like 'lathi' could fall within Section 325 of IPC and not under Section 326 of IPC . Likewise, in another case Halke vs. State of M.P. reported as AIR 1994 SC 951 the accused caused death of deceased by inflicting blows o n him with sticks. Head injury proved to be fatal and the deceased died after about a week. In this case the accused was held liable under Section 325 of IPC and not under Section 326 of IPC . In this regard the following ratio rendered by Principal Seat of this Court in the case of Anusuiya Daharwala v. Govind Ram @ Tappu Kadve reported in 2017 Lawsuit (MP) 223 is condign to quote here:-

"Since injured Sheelabai has sustained a fracture in her ulna bone of left hand and since as per medical evidence the said fracture is caused by a hard and blunt object and since the left hand is not vital part of human body and since there is no likely cause even remotely that the fractur