Bombay High Court Upholds Conviction for Grievous Hurt Under Section 325 IPC — Common Intention Established by Presence and Participation. Petitioners convicted for causing grievous hurt with a stick, sentence of six months SI and fine of Rs.500 upheld.

High Court: Bombay High Court Bench: BOMBAY In Favour of Prosecution
  • 3
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The petitioners, Rajaram Dada Tikule, Dada Bhau Tikule, and Sopan Khandu Tikule, were convicted by the Judicial Magistrate First Class (J.M.F.C.) for the offence punishable under Section 325 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and sentenced to six months simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs.500, with a default sentence of one month. They challenged this conviction and sentence before the Bombay High Court in a criminal revision application. The High Court heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. K.B. Sohwalkar, and the learned APP for the State, Mrs. M.R. Tidake. The court examined the evidence and found that the prosecution had established that the petitioners, acting with common intention, caused grievous hurt to the victim by hitting him with a stick. The court noted that all three petitioners were present at the scene and participated in the assault, which demonstrated their common intention. The injuries sustained by the victim were grievous in nature. The High Court held that the trial court's findings were based on credible evidence and that there was no ground to interfere with the conviction or sentence in revision. Accordingly, the revision application was dismissed, and the conviction and sentence were upheld.

Headnote

A) Criminal Law - Grievous Hurt - Section 325 r/w 34 Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Conviction upheld - Petitioners challenged conviction for causing grievous hurt with a stick - Court found that the presence and participation of all three petitioners at the scene, along with the nature of injuries, established common intention - Held that the trial court's findings were based on credible evidence and no interference was warranted (Paras 1-2).

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the conviction of the petitioners under Section 325 read with Section 34 IPC is sustainable on the basis of the evidence on record.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The High Court dismissed the revision application and upheld the conviction and sentence.

Law Points

  • Section 325 IPC
  • Section 34 IPC
  • Common intention
  • Grievous hurt
  • Revision against conviction
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2010 LawText (BOM) (10) 97

Criminal Revision Application No.127 of 2001

2010-10-07

V.M. Kanade J.

Mr. K.B. Sohwalkar for Petitioners, Mrs. M.R. Tidake - APP for the State

Rajaram Dada Tikule, Dada Bhau Tikule, Sopan Khandu Tikule

The State of Maharashtra

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

Nature of Litigation

Criminal revision application challenging conviction and sentence for grievous hurt.

Remedy Sought

Petitioners sought to set aside the conviction and sentence imposed by the J.M.F.C.

Filing Reason

Petitioners were convicted under Section 325 r/w 34 IPC and sentenced to six months SI and fine of Rs.500.

Previous Decisions

The J.M.F.C. convicted the petitioners and sentenced them as above.

Issues

Whether the conviction under Section 325 read with Section 34 IPC is sustainable.

Submissions/Arguments

Petitioners argued that the conviction was not based on credible evidence. State argued that the evidence established common intention and grievous hurt.

Ratio Decidendi

The presence and participation of all three petitioners at the scene, along with the nature of injuries, established common intention under Section 34 IPC, and the trial court's findings were based on credible evidence.

Judgment Excerpts

Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioners and the learned APP for the state. The Petitioners are challenging the judgment and order passed by the J.M.F.C., who was pleased to convict the Petitioners for the offence punishable under section 325 r/w. 34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer S.I. for six months and to pay fine of Rs.500/- and, in default, to suffer further S.I. for one month.

Procedural History

The petitioners were convicted by the J.M.F.C. and sentenced to six months SI and fine of Rs.500. They filed a criminal revision application before the Bombay High Court challenging the conviction and sentence.

Acts & Sections

  • Indian Penal Code, 1860: 325, 34
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Upholds Conviction for Grievous Hurt Under Section 325 IPC — Common Intention Established by Presence and Participation. Petitioners convicted for causing grievous hurt with a stick, sentence of six months SI and fine of Rs.500 up...
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Quashes Process Against Police Officer in Complaint by Judicial Officer for Assault on Accused. The court held that a judicial officer should not file a complaint in his own court for an offence alleged against an accused produced b...