The Supreme Court reduced the appellant's sentence from 10 years to 5 years rigorous imprisonment for offence under Section 326 read with Section 34 IPC. The Court clarified that weapon classification depends on factual attributes like size and sharpness rather than a fixed standard.
Sentence reduced to five years rigorous imprisonment; conviction under Section 326 IPC upheld.
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.
[2008] 16 S.C.R. 1095
~- I. I
1
~ )
(
_:.
PRABHU
v.
A
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH . (Criminal Appeal No. 1956 of 2008)
..,
DECEMBER 3, 2008
[DR. ARIJIT PASA VAT AND DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, JJ.]
B
Penal Code, 1860:
c
s.326 r.w. s.34-Accused assaulted the victim with sharp weapons and appellant administered lathi blows on him - As a result victim died - Conviction under s.302 r. w. s.34 by trial Court - High Court altered conviction of appellant to s.326 r. w. s. 34 and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment D for 10 years·- Correctness of - Held: Correct - However in peculiar facts of the case, sentence of 5 years rigorous imprisonment would meet ends of justice - Sentence.
~
ss.325, 326 - Applicability of- Held: Size and sharpness of 'weapon decide whether it was dangerous or a deadly weapon - That detetmines the applicability of s.325 or s.326.
Prosecution case was that the accused persons bore grudge against the deceased. On the fateful day, the father of the deceased and PW-9 heard cries of. the deceased. They rushed to the place and found that the three accused were beating him. The accused 'N' was armed with a sharp weapon while the appellant and the other accused were armed with lathis. All of them administered several blows with their respective weapons and caused several injuries on the deceased and thereafter ran away towards the jungle.
The trial Court convicted all the accused under s.302 r.w. s.34 IPC. The appeal filed by accused. 'N' was 1095
E
F
G
H
[2008] 16 S.C:R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
1096
A dismissed while the appeal filed by the appellant and the other accused was partly allowed altering his conviction ·for offence punishable· under s.302 ·read with s.34 IPC to one under s:326· read. With s.34 IPC, and ·sentenced to undergo rig6rous imprisonment for 10 years. ·
B
In the ,insa.nt. appeal, it ws .cntendetl for the appellant that he canhot be convicted . under s.326 · read with .s.34 IPC, and that none of the injuries were grievous hurt, and that the sentence was very hars.
C Partly allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1. Ss. 325 a11d 326 IPC, like the tWC> Sections immediately preceding, .provide the ordinary punishment and punishment under certain aggravating 0circumstances ofthe offences mentioned thereunder.fhe two latter Sections apply to the case of causing "grievous hurt" and the immediately preceding two Sections to the case of'hurt'. [Paras 9] [1100-D]
1.2; Some hurts which are not like those hurts which E are mentioned in ·the first seven·clauses of s.320 IPC, are obviously distin·guished from a slight hurt, may nevertheless be more serious. Thus a wound may cause intense. pa!n,' P,rolonged·· dis.ease or. lasti.ng 'injury to the victim~ although 'it :dQe~ -_nQt' tail. within any of the first F seven . clauses: ·aefore a co·nviction 'for the sentence. of in s.320 rpusi· grievos 1 . .hurt· ~ I be ;, cri ,. stricly · be._pass'ct·,· -' ~ .Proved, , " • o·ne " and the eighth clause is -f the in]uiies defined • • 1 • " no eX'ceptiOn :to· h- 9.enerar rule of iaw that a penal statUte inust be' construed strictly. The expression "any G instrument wich,:usd··as a 'weapon of offence, is likely to ·cau$e'' death" has. o be gauged taking note of the heading of the·'.section. ·what would consfitu'te a. each case,and. no.generalization can 'dangerous weappn' would< depend upon· the fa.cts ~ . > ~ . . .f . be made. [Paras 11 of · H and 12] [11018, C, D, E] .
PRABHU v. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
1097
~
1.3. The heading of the Section provides some A insight into the factors to be considered. the essential ingredients to attract s.326 are : (1) voluntarily causing a hurt; (2) hurt caused must be a grlevou~ hurt; and (3) the grievous hurt must have been caused by dangerous weapons or means. There is no such thing as a regular B' or earmarked weapon for committing murder ot for that matter a hurt. Whether a particular .article can per se cause any serious wound or grievous hurt or injury has to be determined factually. The facts involved in a particular case, depending upon various factors like size, c sharpness, would throw light on the question whether the weapon was a dangerous or deadly weapon or not. That would determine whether in the case s.325 or s. 326 would be applicable. [Para 13] [1101-E, F, G; 1102"'.A-B]
A
B'
State of !J.P. v. lndrajeet Alias Sukhatha (2000) 7 SCC 249 and Mathai v. State of Kera/a (2005) 2 JT 365, relied on.
D
E
Case Law Reference:
(2000) 1 sec 249 relied on Para 13 F (2005) 2 JT 365 relied on Para 14
CRIMINAL APP~LLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 1956 of 2008.
From the Judgment and Order dated 3.11.2004 of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur in Criminal Appeal No. 261 of 1993.
G '
Manoj Prasad for the Appellant.
Siddhartha Dave, Jentiben AO and Vibha Datta Makhija H
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2008]16 S.C.R. .
1098
A for the Respondent.
,, ... ' ' ' , - The Jud_gmnt of th Cqurt was delivere.d by .
B - , · ·t Challenge in this· apeal is'to the judgment of a Divis,Jon Bnch ·o-r the 'Madhya Pradesh High Court, Jabalp·ur Bench, holdi.ng· the appellant guilty of offence punish.able under Section 326 read with Section 34 -of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the· 'IPC'). The a·ppellant was ·sentenced to undergo c rigorous imprisonment for 1 O years. By the impugned judgment three.appeals were disposed ofbeing Criminal Appeal No.185 q_(1995;·184.of 1995 and 261 of1993. The appeal filed by accused Nanhe Lal was dismissed while the appeal filed by the app,ellant was partly· allowed altering his conviction for 0offence.punishable under Section302readwithSection34 IPC to one under Section 326. read with Section 34 IPC. Similar was the position in respect of co-accused Jagdish . . I '· - .· ~ ~ I. • ~ •
· '. 3: Prosecution version in a nutsh~ll is as follows:
·.. .. .. ~ . . .. ~ ,
E ... A .few m,cmths before the incident dated 28.12.1987, Dropadibai, daughter of Gayaprasad was molested -by accused Prabhu about which he was facing prosecution in the court. Accused Prabhu Dayalwas in this context trying to pressurize d!3ceased Shankar, broth~r of Dropdibai, to amicably settle the F matter, but finding that.he did not budge: the accu$ed persons who were related started bearing a grudge against Shankar. On 28.12.1987 at about 9.00 in the morning, Shankar had gone out in the village. At 11 O' clock Gayaprasad (PW-5) had gone to call his ploughman followed by Rishiraj (PW-9). No sooner G thatthey reached Soryana Mahalia, they heard the call of Sha.nker that he be saved. Both Gayaprasad and Rishi Raj rushed- to the place and they noticed that the three accused were beating· Shanker. Accused Nanhelal was armed with· Katarna. (a sharp instrument for cutting) while the.either-two were armed H with lathis. It is aJleged that all of them· administered several
1099
PRABHU V.'STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.]
;.(
.,
blows with their respective weapons and caused severe injuries and thereafter ran away towards the jungle.
The report of the incident Ext.P-12 was lodged by Gayaprasad (PW-5). Fourteen external.injuries were found on the body of the deceased. As per the opinion of the Autopsy Surgeon, the death of the deceased was caused due to extensive hemorrhage on account of shock due to injury No.8 mainly arid injury Nos. 13 and 14 causing hemorrhage. They were incised wounds. Since accused persons abjured guilt, trial was held. Each of the accused persons was convicted as noted above. Appeals were filed before the High Court. So far as the appellant is concerned, it was submitted that he could not be convicted in terms of Section 302 read With Section 34 IPC as only accused Nanhe, according to the prosecution, caused incised wounds. The appellant was holding only a stick. The High Court relied on the evidence of two eye-witnesses PWs 5 and 9 and held that the appellant cannot be held guilty of offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC. It was held that the prosecution has not proved that each of the participating culprits had the same intention and each one shared the intention of the other. The High Court noticed that the accused Prabhu and Jagdish had caused lacerated wounds and, therefore, the knowledge which can be inferred from the said acts is that they intended to cause grievous hurt. Accordingly, the conviction as noted above was altered.
A
B
c
D
E
F
.,;.· ..(
G
H
[2008) 16 S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
1100
r
A 7. Section 326 deals with offence of voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons or means.
).
E 10. "Grievous hurt" has been defined in Section 320 IPC, which read as follows:
"320 Grievous Hurt - The following kinds of hurt only are designated as "grievous"-
F
First - Emasculation;
Secondly - Permanent privation of the sight of either eye.·
G Thirdly - Permanent privation of the .hearing of either ear.
Fourthly - Privation of any member or joint.
Fifthly - Destruction or permanent impairing of the powers of any members or joint. H
PRABHU v. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.]
1101
-t
Sixthly - Permanent disfiguration of the head or face.
A
Seventhly - Fracture or dislocation of a bone or tooth .
. Eighthly -Any hurt which endangers life orwhich causes the sufferer to be during the space of twenty days in severe bodily pain, or unable to follow his ordinary pursuits."
~
F.
H
1102 SUPREME COURT REPORTS
;
l
[2008) 16 S.C.R.
_,JI.
~·
C appellant was guilty of offence punishable under Section 326 read with Section 34 IPC. However, in the peculiar facts of the case, the sentence of 5 years rigorous imprisonment would meet the ends of justice.
0 16. The appeal is allowed to the aforesaid extent.
D.G. Appeal partly allowed.
3 issues framed by the court
Whether an appellant convicted under Section 326 read with Section 34 IPC can have his conviction altered and sentence reduced in light of specific facts.
How the size and sharpness of a weapon determine its classification as a dangerous or deadly weapon under Section 326 IPC.
Whether the sentence of five years rigorous imprisonment would meet the ends of justice in the peculiar facts of the case.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
State of U.P. v. Indrajeet Alias SukhathaRelied on¶13
State of U.P. v. Indrajeet Alias Sukhatha (2000) 7 SCC 249 · Who else cites this
Mathai v. State of KeralaRelied on¶14
Mathai v. State of Kerala (2005) 2 JT 365 · Who else cites this
3 provisions across 1 enactments
Prabhu
State of Madhya Pradesh
Dr. Arijit Pasayat
Dr. Muktadam Sharma
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
