PRABHU versus STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH .

Citation: [2008] 16 S.C.R. 1095 · Decided: 03-12-2008 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Case Partly allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

( 
[2008] 16 S.C.R. 1095 
PRABHU 
A 
_:. 
v. 
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH . 
(Criminal Appeal No. 1956 of 2008) 
DECEMBER 3, 2008 
B 
[DR. ARIJIT PASA VAT AND DR. MUKUNDAKAM 
.., 
SHARMA, JJ.] 
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. 
I. 
I 
ss.325, 326 - Applicability of- Held: Size and sharpness 
of 'weapon decide whether it was dangerous or a deadly 
E 
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 
F 
deceased. They rushed to the place and found that the 
1 
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 
G 
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 
H 
1096 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2008] 16 S.C:R. 
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 
B 
undergo rig6rous imprisonment for 10 years. 
· 
In the ,ins~a.nt. appeal, it w~s .c~ntendetl 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 
0 circumstances 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 
grievo~s .hurt· c~ri · be._pass~'ct·,· o·ne -~f the in]uiies defined 
1 
. 
~ 
I ;, 
,. 
~-' 
~ 
, 
" 
• 
" 
• 
• 
1 
• 
" 
in s.320 rpusi· be stric~ly .Proved, and the eighth clause is 
no eX'ceptiOn :to· ~h~- 9.enerar rule of iaw that a penal 
statUte inust be' construed strictly. The expression "any 
G instrument w~ich,:us~d··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. 
'dangerous weappn' would< depend upon· the fa.cts of · 
~ 
. 
> ~ 
. 
. 
.f 
. 
each case,and. no.generalization can be made. [Paras 11 
H and 12] [1101~8, 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] 
State of !J.P. v. lndrajeet Alias Sukhatha

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.