The High Court allowed a partial criminal appeal against a Section 326 IPC conviction for grievous hurt. While upholding the conviction, the court commuted the sentence to the period already undergone by the appellant due to the long delay in the process.
Conviction affirmed; sentence reduced to period already undergone; fine remains intact.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
Criminal Appeal No. 2740 of 1999
Babulal @ Babuji, S/o. Ledgu Satnami, aged 29 years, resident of Chandiya Pathra, P.S. Simga, District Raipur (M.P.)
---- Appellant
Versus
State of Madhya Pradesh through Police Station Suhela, District Raipur (M.P.) (now C.G.)
---- Respondents
For Appellant : Ms. Indira Tripathi, Advocate For Respondents : Mr. Vivek Singhal, Penal Lawyer
Hon'ble Shri Justice Ram Prasanna Sharma Judgment On Board
01.11.2017
2
asked him to accompany him, thereafter the injured and the accused/appellant left the place and owing to the previous dispute regarding possession of land the accused/appellant caused injury on the chest and abdomen of the injured. The matter was reported to Police Station Suhela. The injured was sent for medical examination. Certain articles were seized. Statement of the witnesses were recorded during the investigation. After completion of the investigation, charge sheet was filed against the appellant before the trial Court under Section 307 of the IPC, to which the appellant did not plead guilty and the trial was conducted and after completion of the trial, the trial Court convicted the appellant as mentioned above.
been falsely implicated on account of land dispute and the statement of the complainant is not reliable. She submits that at the time of incident it was the complainant who possessed the knife and when he tried to assault the appellant, the appellant snatched the knife from him and during snatching some injury caused to the injured for which no criminal liability can be fastened on the accused/appellant. Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that the statement of the prosecution witnesses are contradictory in nature and the same cannot be relied upon and it is not established by the prosecution that the injury found on the body of the injured can be caused by the knife allegedly seized from the accused/appellant. In support of her argument, learned counsel for the appellant placed reliance in Sattan Sahani Vs. State of Bihar and other (2002) 7 SCC 604
3
and prays that the sentence imposed upon him may be reduced to the period already undergone by him.
4
5
Sd/- (Ram Prasanna Sharma) JUDGE
Santosh
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should interfere with the trial court's conviction for grievous hurt faced by the injured person's step-brother amidst a land dispute.
Whether the principle of snatching a weapon to cause an accident exempts the appellant from criminal liability under Section 326 of the IPC.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Sattan Sahani Vs. State of Bihar and othersReferred¶18
Sattan Sahani Vs. State of Bihar and other (2002) 7 SCC 604 · Who else cites this
3 provisions across 1 enactments
Babulal @ Babuji
State of Madhya Pradesh
Ram Prasanna Sharma
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
