Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 663 (MP)

MANIK RAO YAVLE v. STATE OF M. P.

2016-08-05

S.K.PALO

body2016
JUDGMENT : 1. Mr. Sushil Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioners. Ms. Surbhi Nigam, learned Deputy G.A. for respondent/State. The petitioners being aggrieved by order dated 16-6-2016, whereby the charges have been framed against them by 1st ASJ, Betul in S.T. No.46/2016 for the offenses under sections 294, 223 (5 counts), 506-B and 326 of Indian Penal Code, have filed this revision under section 397 read with section 401 of Criminal Procedure Code. 2. Filtering the unnecessary details, facts requisite for the disposal of this petition are that, the complainant-Sheshrao Alokar lodged a report against the petitioners/accused persons that on 2-11-2015 while constructing boundary wall the accused persons opposed the same and were trying to demolish the pillars. When the complainant and his associates asked not to do so, the accused persons abused the complainant by filthy language and assaulted by bricks and ‘lathi’ (wooden stick). They also threatened them of their life. On this report initially crime was registered under sections 294, 223, 506/34 of Indian Penal Code but, after receiving the MLC and X-ray report offence under section 325 of Indian Penal Code has been added. 3. Subsequently, before filing the charge-sheet, and after making query, offence under section 326 of Indian Penal Code has also been registered, charge-sheet has been filed. The learned ASJ, Betul framed charges under sections 294, 223 (5 counts), 506-B and 326 of Indian Penal Code against the petitioners. 4. The petitioners assailed the same on the ground that offence under section 326 of Indian Penal Code is not made out as the injuries caused to Anuradha is not dangerous to human life. No doubt she was admitted in the Hospital for 11 days and she left the Hospital on 7-11-2015 and without any inquiry she went to Nagpur for treatment. The Court below has failed to consider that in the query report of Nagpur, no opinion has been given which would show that the weapon used is a weapon mentioned in the section 324 of Indian Penal Code nor the injury is dangerous to life. 5. Per contra, learned Deputy G.A. for respondent/State opposed the above submissions and contented that the order passed by the learned ASJ, Betul is proper and needs no interference. 6. On perusal of the records available, it seems that Sheshrao, Atul, Akash and Deepak have received simple injuries by hard and blunt weapon. 5. Per contra, learned Deputy G.A. for respondent/State opposed the above submissions and contented that the order passed by the learned ASJ, Betul is proper and needs no interference. 6. On perusal of the records available, it seems that Sheshrao, Atul, Akash and Deepak have received simple injuries by hard and blunt weapon. But Anuradha, wife of Sheshrao has received simple injuries except injury on Nasal Bone, and on her right side of Scalp. The injury on the Nasal Bone, after the X-ray report, was found to be displaced fracture. Whereas the injury on the right temporal parietal area of the scalp, which does not show any intracranial injury. The injury on the nasal bone having fracture is of “grievous in nature” and other injuries are simple in nature, and all these injuries were caused by hard and blunt object. 7. As per the prosecution story, the injury on nasal bone was caused by ‘lathi’ (wooden stick). No doubt the learned trial Court has framed charge under section 326 of Indian Penal Code, apart from the other offenses. But challenge has been made only with regard to the offence under section 326 of Indian Penal Code. Therefore, the discussion is restricted to that extent only. 8. The essential ingredients of offence under section 326 of Indian Penal Code are as under : “(i) that the accused caused grievous hurt to another person; (ii) that such hurt was voluntarily caused; (iii) that such grievous hurt (as contemplated under section 320 of Indian Penal Code) was caused by any means provided under section 324 of Indian Penal Code.” 9. The weapon or instrument used for the commission of offence is very important. Section 324 of Indian Penal Code reads as follow; “324. The weapon or instrument used for the commission of offence is very important. Section 324 of Indian Penal Code reads as follow; “324. Whoever, except in the case provided for by section 334, voluntarily causes hurt by means of any instrument for shooting, stabbing or cutting, or any instrument which, used as a weapon of offence, is likely to cause death, or by means of fire or any heated substance, or by means of any poison or any corrosive substance, or by means of any explosive substance, or by means of any substance which it is deleterious to the human body to inhale, to swallow, or to receive into the blood, or by means of any animal, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.” 10. In the present case the weapon allegedly used is ‘lathi’ (wooden stick) and brick, and the Medical Officer has opined that the injury was caused by hard and blunt object. Whether, ‘lathi’ (wooden stick) used in the present context can be termed as a “weapon or instrument likely to cause death”. 11. For the purpose of section 324 of Indian Penal Code the instrument must be such that, by its use as weapon it can likely to caused death. The instrument by virtue of its very nature should be that, one could reasonably precedent that, by its use as weapon offence of death would be probable. It was something enhanced in the instrument which rendered death probable. That being the true import of the word “likely” used in the section, the said ‘lathi’ (wooden stick) which has been used for assault could not be said to be by its very nature, an instrument likely to cause death, within the purview of section 324 of Indian Penal Code. 12. Therefore, ‘lathi’ (wooden stick) cannot be said in the present context as an instrument likely to cause death or a dangerous weapon. Thus, grievous hurt caused by a hard and blunt weapon like ‘lathi’ fall within section 325 of Indian Penal Code and not under section 326 of Indian Penal Code. Reference can be made in this regard to the case of Mohinder Singh vs. State (Delhi Administration) reported in 1985 Cri.L.J. 1903 (SC). 13. Thus, grievous hurt caused by a hard and blunt weapon like ‘lathi’ fall within section 325 of Indian Penal Code and not under section 326 of Indian Penal Code. Reference can be made in this regard to the case of Mohinder Singh vs. State (Delhi Administration) reported in 1985 Cri.L.J. 1903 (SC). 13. Accordingly, on the basis of the above discussion this revision under section 397/401 of Criminal Procedure Code is allowed and order dated 16-6-2016, so far as it relates to framing of charges under section 326 of Indian Penal Code is set aside. However, it is made clear that prima facie offence under section 325 is made out. 14. Learned trial Court is directed to proceed accordingly.