Bombay High Court Upholds Conviction Under Section 326 IPC for Knife Assault Causing Grievous Hurt. Conviction Affirmed Based on Medical Evidence and Recovery of Weapon Despite Hostile Witness.

High Court: Bombay High Court Bench: NAGPUR In Favour of Prosecution
  • 79
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The appellant, Deepak s/o Rambhau Pandit, was convicted by the 4th Ad hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Amravati in Sessions Trial No.226/2001 for an offence punishable under Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for two years and a fine of Rs.1,000, with default rigorous imprisonment for three months. The criminal law was set into motion on 03.07.2001 when Gajanan Ugale (PW6) lodged an oral report. According to the report, on that day at 10:00 AM, the injured Narendra (PW3), cousin of the first informant, was proceeding towards his house after closing his shop, accompanied by Dilip Munde (PW2). At that time, the appellant, his brother Madan, and an unknown person came on a scooter and assaulted Narendra with a knife, then fled. The first informant and others rushed Narendra to Irwin Hospital, Amravati. Police Inspector Hanumantrao Wadde (PW14) registered a crime against the appellant, his brother, and an unknown person under Section 307 read with Section 34 IPC. He visited the spot, prepared a spot panchanama, seized a scooter, and recorded witness statements. The appellant and Madan were arrested by PSI Shaukat Ali (PW13) and later taken into custody by PW14. During police custody, the appellant gave a discovery statement and led to the recovery of a 'Katyar' (knife) under seizure panchanama. The investigation was later completed by Lalsingh Rathod (PW15), who filed the charge sheet. The trial court convicted the appellant under Section 326 IPC. The appellant challenged the conviction in the High Court. The High Court, after considering the evidence, including the medical evidence showing a dangerous injury and the recovery of the weapon at the instance of the appellant, upheld the conviction. The court noted that although the first informant turned hostile, the prosecution case was supported by other evidence. The appeal was dismissed.

Headnote

A) Criminal Law - Grievous Hurt - Section 326 IPC - Conviction Upheld - Appellant convicted for causing grievous hurt by knife attack - Medical evidence showed dangerous injury - Recovery of weapon at instance of appellant - Hostile witness did not affect prosecution case - Held that conviction was proper (Paras 1-4).

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the conviction of the appellant under Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code for causing grievous hurt by a knife attack is sustainable based on the evidence on record.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The appeal is dismissed. The judgment and order of conviction dated 04.02.2006 passed by the 4th Ad hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Amravati in Sessions Trial No.226/2001 is upheld.

Law Points

  • Section 326 IPC
  • Grievous Hurt
  • Knife Attack
  • Hostile Witness
  • Medical Evidence
  • Recovery of Weapon
  • Conviction Upheld
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2019 LawText (BOM) (04) 188

Criminal Appeal No.133/2006

2019-04-26

V. M. Deshpande, J.

Mr. S. S. Shingne for appellant, Mr. A. M. Joshi, A.P.P. for respondent

Deepak s/o Rambhau Pandit

The State of Maharashtra through P.S.O., P.S. Walgaon, Tq. Dist. Amravati

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

Nature of Litigation

Criminal appeal against conviction for offence under Section 326 IPC.

Remedy Sought

Appellant sought to challenge and set aside the judgment and order of conviction dated 04.02.2006 passed by the 4th Ad hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Amravati in Sessions Trial No.226/2001.

Filing Reason

Appellant was convicted for causing grievous hurt by knife attack.

Previous Decisions

Trial court convicted appellant under Section 326 IPC and sentenced to two years RI and fine.

Issues

Whether the conviction under Section 326 IPC is sustainable based on the evidence on record.

Submissions/Arguments

Appellant argued against conviction. State supported the conviction.

Ratio Decidendi

The conviction under Section 326 IPC is sustainable as the medical evidence shows a dangerous injury and the recovery of the weapon at the instance of the appellant supports the prosecution case, despite the first informant turning hostile.

Judgment Excerpts

By the present appeal, the appellant is challenging the judgment and order of conviction dated 04.02.2006 passed by learned 4th Ad hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Amravati in Sessions Trial No.226/2001. The criminal law was set into motion by Gajanan Ugale (PW6) on 03.07.2001. As per the oral report, on 03.07.2001 at 10.00 O'clock, injured Narendra (PW3), cousin of first informant, was proceeding towards his house after closing his shop. During the Police Custody Remand (PCR), appellant and Madan gave discovery statement and agreed to show the place where they have concealed the weapon.

Procedural History

On 03.07.2001, FIR was registered. Investigation led to charge sheet. Trial court convicted appellant on 04.02.2006. Appellant filed Criminal Appeal No.133/2006 in Bombay High Court, which was dismissed on 26.04.2019.

Acts & Sections

  • Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC): 326, 307, 34
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court High Court of Gujarat Dismisses Appeal of Development Officer in LIC Termination Case for Non-Compliance with Performance Benchmarks. Confirmation of Appointment Does Not Confer Immunity from Termination Under LIC Staff Regulations.
Related Judgement
Supreme Court Supreme Court Quashes Bail Order in Murder Conspiracy Case Due to Inadequate Consideration of Evidence. High Court's grant of bail to accused charged under Sections 302, 120(B), 114 IPC set aside as it failed to assess investigation material and seri...