MATHAI versus STATE OF KERALA

Citation: [2005] 1 S.C.R. 450 · Decided: 12-01-2005 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Disposed off
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
MATHAI 
v. 
ST A TE OF KERALA 
JANUARY 12, 2005 
B 
(ARJJIT PASA YAT AND S.H. KAPADIA, JJ.] 
Penal Code, 1860: 
Ss. 320, 325 and 326-Accused causing injury to victim with a stone-
C Conviction u!s 326 by courts below-'Grievous hurt'-'Dangerous weapon'-
Connotation of-Held, injury caused was covered under 'grievous hurt'-
Considering the size of the stone, it cannot be said that a dangerous weapon 
was used-Conviction altered to one under s.325. 
D 
Words and Phrases-'Dangerous weapon' and 'grievous hurt' as 
occurring in s.326 /PC-Connotation of 
The appellant-accused was prosecuted on the charges that he hit PW 
I with a stone causing lacerated wound over the left posterior region of 
the head and fracture of left upper incisor tooth of the victim. The trial 
E court convicted and sentenced the accused under section 326 IPC. The 
appeal and the revision filed by the accused were dismissed. 
In the appeal filed by the accused before the Supreme Court, it was 
contended that the injuries caused to the victim did not constitute 'grievous 
hurt'; that the weapon allegedly used could not be termed as a 'dangerous 
F weapon'; and that the appellant having undergone major portion of the 
sentence and more than a decade having elapsed, the sentence be suitably 
modified. 
Disposing of the appeal, the Court 
G 
HELD: 1.1. The essential ingredients to attract s.326 IPC are: (I) 
voluntarily causing a hurt; (2) hurt caused must be a grievous hurt; and 
(3) the grievous hurt must have been caused by dangerous weapons or 
means. There is no such thing as a regular or earmarked weapon for 
committing murder or for that matter a hurt. Whether a particular article 
H 
can per se cause any serious wound or grievous hurt or injury has to be 
450 
.. 
... 
. ' 
I 
• 
MA THAI v. ST ATE OF KERA LA [PASAYA T. J.) 
451 
determined factually. 1455-B-Cj 
A 
State of UP. v. Indrajeet alias Sukhantha, 120001 7 SCC 249, relied 
on. 
1.2. The evidence of Doctor (PW.5) clearly shows that the hurt or 
the injury that was caused was covered under the expression 'grievous B 
hurt' as defined under s.320 IPC. The inevitable conclusion is that a 
grievous hurt was caused. (455-C] 
1.3. It is not that in every case a stone would constitute a dangerous 
weapon. It would depend upon the facts of the case. The facts involved in 
a particular case, depending upon various factors like size, sharpness, C 
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. In the instant case, considering the size of 
the stone which was used, as revealed by material on record, it cannot be 
said that a dangerous weapon was used. Therefore, the conviction is altered 
to one under s.325 IPC. (455-C-F] 
D 
2. No hard and fast rule can be applied for assessing a proper 
sentence; nor a long passage of time can always be a determinative factor 
so far as sentence is concerned. It is not in dispute that a major portion 
of the sentence awarded has been suffered by the appellant. On the 
peculiar facts of the case, the sentence is restricted to the period already E 
undergone. (455-F-G] 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 89 
of 2005. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 22.9.2003 of the Kerala High F 
Court in Crl. R.P. No. 427 of 1998 (A). 
P. Sureshan, Anurag Singh, Mohd. Taiyab Khan and Shakil Ahmed 
Syed for the Appellant. 
Ms. Indira and K.R. Sasiprabhu for the Respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. Leave granted. 
Appellant calls in question legality of the judgment rendered by a learned 
G 
H 
452 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2005] I S.C.R. 
A Single Judge of the Kerala High Court upholding view of the trial Court that 
the appellant (hereinafter referred to as the 'accused') was guilty of offence 
punishable under Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code (in short the 'IPC') 
and has been rightly convicted under such provision with corresponding 
sentence of two years rigorous imprisonment. Learned Judicial First Class 
B Magistrate, Kolencherry convicted the accused and sentenced him which was 
confirmed by learned Third Additional Sessions Judge, Ernakulam. The 
revision applkation filed by the accused under Section 397 read with Section 
401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short the 'Code') was 
dismissed by the impugned order. 
C 
The prosecution case is that on 27.10.1992 at about 5.30 p
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.