Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Arun Virappa Koli, was tried along with another accused for offences under Section 460 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) before the III Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Thane, in Sessions Case No.186 of 2002. The trial court convicted the appellant under Section 459 IPC and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for five years and a fine of Rs.300, with default simple imprisonment for one month. The appellant appealed to the Bombay High Court. At the hearing, the appellant's counsel confined arguments to the nature of the offence and quantum of sentence, fairly accepting the finding of complicity. The counsel argued that the injuries caused to the victim were not grievous or life-threatening, and therefore the offence could not be under Section 460 IPC but a lesser offence under Section 458 IPC, warranting a reduced sentence. The court examined the injuries noted by P.W.9 Dr. Sanjiv, which included incised wounds on the right arm and chin, and a sharp linear abrasion on the right arm. The court observed that these injuries were not grievous or life-threatening, and thus the offence fell under Section 458 IPC (which covers hurt caused during lurking house-trespass or house-breaking) rather than Section 460 IPC (which requires grievous hurt or attempt to cause death). The court held that the conviction under Section 460 IPC was not sustainable and modified it to Section 458 IPC. Considering the nature of injuries and the period of sentence already undergone, the court reduced the sentence from five years rigorous imprisonment to three years rigorous imprisonment. The fine and default sentence were maintained. The appeal was partly allowed.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Lurking House-trespass or House-breaking - Section 460 vs Section 458 IPC - Distinction based on nature of hurt - The appellant was convicted under Section 460 IPC for causing grievous hurt during house-breaking. However, the injuries proved were incised wounds and abrasions, not grievous or life-threatening. Held that the offence falls under Section 458 IPC, which covers hurt caused during such offences, not Section 460 IPC which requires grievous hurt or attempt to cause death. (Paras 5-6) B) Criminal Law - Sentence - Reduction - Section 458 IPC - Maximum sentence is seven years but court may impose lesser term - Considering the nature of injuries and that the appellant had already undergone part of sentence, the sentence of five years rigorous imprisonment was reduced to three years rigorous imprisonment. (Para 6)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the appellant's conviction under Section 460 IPC was sustainable given the nature of injuries caused, or whether it should be altered to a lesser offence under Section 458 IPC, and whether the sentence of five years rigorous imprisonment should be reduced.
Final Decision
Appeal partly allowed. Conviction under Section 459 IPC (as recorded by trial court) is modified to conviction under Section 458 IPC. Sentence of rigorous imprisonment for five years reduced to rigorous imprisonment for three years. Fine and default sentence maintained.
Law Points
- Section 460 IPC requires grievous hurt or attempt to cause death during lurking house-trespass or house-breaking
- Section 458 IPC covers hurt caused during such offences
- nature of injuries determines which section applies
- injuries not grievous or life-threatening warrant conviction under Section 458 IPC
