Bombay High Court Upholds Conviction of Appellants in Grievous Hurt Case. Cousins convicted under Section 326 read with Section 34 IPC for attacking victims with dangerous weapons, sentence of 7 years rigorous imprisonment confirmed.

High Court: Bombay High Court Bench: AURANGABAD In Favour of Prosecution
  • 144
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The case involves an appeal against conviction under Section 326 read with Section 34 IPC. The appellants, Ramesh, Gopal, and Eknath Mahajan, were convicted for causing grievous hurt to Arun Mahajan and Sarlabai Mahajan using a sword and stick. The incident occurred on 6-2-2008, following a suspicion of illicit relations. The trial court sentenced them to 7 years rigorous imprisonment. The High Court, after examining the evidence, upheld the conviction, finding the testimony of injured witnesses credible and corroborated by medical evidence. The appeal was dismissed.

Headnote

A) Criminal Law - Grievous Hurt by Dangerous Weapon - Section 326 read with Section 34 Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Conviction based on testimony of injured witnesses and medical evidence - The appellants were convicted for causing grievous hurt with a sword and stick to the victims. The court held that the evidence of injured witnesses is reliable and corroborated by medical reports, and the common intention of the appellants was established. (Paras 1-3)

B) Evidence Law - Credibility of Injured Witnesses - The testimony of injured witnesses is given great weight as they are unlikely to falsely implicate innocent persons. The court relied on the consistent statements of the victims and other eyewitnesses. (Paras 2-3)

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the conviction of the appellants under Section 326 read with Section 34 IPC for voluntarily causing grievous hurt by dangerous weapon to the victims is sustainable based on the evidence on record.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The appeal is dismissed. The conviction and sentence imposed by the trial court are confirmed.

Law Points

  • Section 326 IPC
  • Section 34 IPC
  • Grievous hurt by dangerous weapon
  • Common intention
  • Credibility of injured witnesses
  • Medical evidence corroboration
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2011 LawText (BOM) (07) 3

Criminal Appeal No. 59 of 2011

2011-07-15

Shrihari P. Davare

Mr. K.C. Sant for appellants, Smt. Y.M. Kshirsagar for respondent

Ramesh s/o. Tulshiram Mahajan, Gopal s/o. Tulshiram Mahajan, Eknath s/o. Tulshiram Mahajan

The State of Maharashtra

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

Nature of Litigation

Criminal appeal against conviction for grievous hurt by dangerous weapon.

Remedy Sought

Appellants sought acquittal from conviction under Section 326 read with Section 34 IPC.

Filing Reason

Appellants were convicted by the trial court for causing grievous hurt to victims with a sword and stick.

Previous Decisions

Trial court convicted appellants and sentenced them to 7 years rigorous imprisonment each.

Issues

Whether the conviction under Section 326 read with Section 34 IPC is sustainable based on evidence.

Submissions/Arguments

Appellants argued that the evidence was insufficient and that they were falsely implicated. Prosecution relied on testimony of injured witnesses and medical evidence to support conviction.

Ratio Decidendi

The testimony of injured witnesses is credible and corroborated by medical evidence, establishing the appellants' common intention to cause grievous hurt by dangerous weapons.

Judgment Excerpts

Challenge in this appeal is to the conviction and sentence imposed upon the appellants herein... The facts and events which gave rise to the present appeal are as follows...

Procedural History

The trial court convicted the appellants on 16th April 2010 in Sessions Case No. 15 of 2008. The appellants filed Criminal Appeal No. 59 of 2011 before the High Court.

Acts & Sections

  • Indian Penal Code, 1860: 326, 34
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Dismisses Petitioners' Challenge to Mutation Entries in Land Revenue Records — No Substantial Question of Law Arises Under Article 227 of Constitution of India. Mutation entries are summary in nature and do not confer title; dispu...
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Dismisses Revision Applications in Rent Control Dispute — Licence vs. Lease Determination Under Bombay Rent Act, 1947. Agreement for use of shop premises held to be a lease, not a licence, based on exclusive possession and intenti...