Supreme Court Partly Allows Appeal in Grievous Hurt Case — Conviction Altered to Section 326 IPC. The court found that the appellant did not have motive or intention to cause fatal injury, and the act was committed during a melee, warranting a lesser charge under Section 326 IPC.

In Favour of Accused
  • 0
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The appellant, Ramu, appealed against the judgment of the High Court of Allahabad which had altered the conviction of five other co-accused while confirming his conviction for an offence under Section 302 read with Section 149 IPC. The incident occurred on 21.7.1978 when Rani Bitti (PW-1) and her son Satti confronted Ramu (A-1) over an unpaid debt, leading to a chase and subsequent attack by Ramu and others. Satti suffered fatal injuries, including an incised wound allegedly inflicted by Ramu with a bhala. The Sessions Court convicted Ramu under Section 302 IPC and sentenced him to life imprisonment. However, the High Court acquitted him of the murder charge, finding him guilty under Section 304 IPC, resulting in a 7-year sentence. The Supreme Court examined the evidence and concluded that Ramu lacked motive and intent to kill, determining that the act constituted grievous hurt rather than culpable homicide. Consequently, the court altered the conviction to Section 326 IPC and imposed a 3-year sentence, considering the time elapsed since the incident and the absence of enmity. The court ordered the appellant to surrender to serve the remainder of his sentence, with a recommendation for remission for the time already served.

Headnote

A) Criminal Law - Nature of Offence - Culpable Homicide vs. Grievous Hurt - Conviction altered from Section 304 IPC to Section 326 IPC - The court found that the appellant did not have motive or intention to cause fatal injury, and the act was committed during a melee, warranting a lesser charge. The court held that the appellant's actions constituted grievous hurt punishable under Section 326 IPC, leading to a sentence of 3 years' rigorous imprisonment (Paras 1-3).

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

What is the nature of the offence committed by the appellant?

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The Supreme Court altered the conviction of the appellant from Section 304 IPC to Section 326 IPC, sentencing him to 3 years' rigorous imprisonment. The court ordered the appellant to surrender to serve the remainder of his sentence and recommended remission for the time already served.

Law Points

  • Culpable homicide
  • Grievous hurt
  • Use of deadly weapon
  • Alteration of conviction
  • Remission of sentence
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2004 LawText (SC) (02) 88

Appeal (crl.) 1945 of 1996

2004-02-04

N. Santosh Hegde, B.P. Singh

Jaspal Singh, Garvesh Kabra

Ramu

State of U.P.

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Criminal appeal against conviction for murder and grievous hurt.

Remedy Sought

The appellant sought to overturn the conviction and sentence imposed by the lower courts.

Filing Reason

The appellant contended that the conviction under Section 304 IPC was erroneous.

Previous Decisions

The Sessions Court convicted the appellant under Section 302 IPC, which was altered by the High Court to Section 304 IPC.

Issues

Nature of the offence committed by the appellant Whether the appellant had motive or intention to kill

Submissions/Arguments

The appellant argued that he lacked intent to kill and acted in a melee. The respondent maintained that the evidence supported the conviction under Section 304 IPC.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the absence of motive and intent to kill, along with the circumstances of the incident, warranted a conviction for grievous hurt rather than culpable homicide.

Judgment Excerpts

The trial court came to the conclusion that the offence committed by the appellant was one punishable under section 302 read with section 149. We also agree with the High Court that the injury in question was caused during a melee in which 6 persons took part.

Procedural History

The appellant was convicted by the Sessions Court under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to life imprisonment. The High Court altered the conviction to Section 304 IPC with a 7-year sentence, leading to the current appeal.

Acts & Sections

  • Indian Penal Code: 147, 148, 302, 304, 326
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
Supreme Court Supreme Court Quashes Evacuee Declaration Due to Invalid Notice. The notice issued under section 7 lacked specific grounds, leading to an invalid declaration under the Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1950.
Related Judgement
Supreme Court Supreme Court Upholds Zamindar in Agricultural Tenancy Ejectment Suit Under U.P. Tenancy Act, 1939. Criminal Court's Provisional Possession Order under Section 145 CrPC Does Not Confer Lawful Title or Defeat Revenue Court Jurisdiction for Ejectment o...