- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Jagannath And Others v. The State Of Uttar Pradesh .
Legal Opinion Summary
Factual and Procedural Background
The appellants Jagannath, Ram Swarup, Tokhey and Ghurra were convicted under Section 326 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and each was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for three years. They were also convicted under Section 342 IPC and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for six months; the two sentences were ordered to run concurrently. This appeal challenged those convictions and sentences.
In the course of the judgment the court summarized the injuries sustained by the victim: 25 separate incised wounds (with measurements and specific locations) across the head, neck, chest, back, shoulder, abdomen, buttock, thigh and fingers, all described as knife-inflicted incised wounds. Medical evidence included the opinion of Dr. Mangat Ram that the injuries were not dangerous to life and a bed-head ticket showing hospital admission from October 9 to November 20 (a period of more than a month). The appellant's counsel argued that the case should have been tried under Section 324 IPC rather than Section 326 IPC and that the convictions under Section 326 should be set aside or the sentence reduced.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the facts of the case constituted an offence under Section 326 IPC (grievous hurt by dangerous weapons) as convicted, or whether the proper charge was under Section 324 IPC.
- Whether the injuries amounted to "grievous hurt" within the meaning of Section 320 IPC (clause eighthly: endangers life or causes severe bodily pain or inability to follow ordinary pursuits for twenty days).
- Whether proof that the injured person was in severe bodily pain or unable to follow ordinary pursuits for twenty days must be established by medical evidence, or may be established by other evidence (including the injured person's testimony and hospital records).
Arguments of the Parties
Appellant's Arguments
- The learned counsel for the appellants contended that the case made out was one under Section 324 IPC and not Section 326 IPC; therefore convictions under Section 326 should be set aside and substituted with convictions under Section 324 with a reduced sentence.
- The learned counsel also argued that the mere fact of remaining in hospital for more than twenty days did not automatically render the injuries "grievous" under Section 320 IPC and that the duration-of-pain or inability-to-pursue-ordinary-activities requirement should be established by medical evidence rather than non-medical evidence.
Table of Precedents Cited
No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The court reviewed the nature and extent of the injuries (25 incised wounds across multiple parts of the body, all knife-inflicted). It analyzed the statutory definition of "grievous hurt" in Section 320 IPC, noting clause (Eighthly) provides three alternative criteria for grievousness: (i) endangers life, or (ii) causes the sufferer during the space of twenty days to be in severe bodily pain, or (iii) causes inability during that twenty-day period to follow ordinary pursuits. The court emphasized these are alternatives; satisfying any one suffices.
The medical witness, Dr. Mangat Ram, opined that the injuries were not dangerous to life and stated that an X-ray was desirable but could not be done because the patient could not be sent to another hospital. The court observed the bed-head ticket showing admission from October 9 to November 20 (over one month). Addressing the appellants' contention that only medical evidence can establish the twenty-day requirement, the court rejected that proposition: the law requires proof that the injured person was in severe pain or unable to follow ordinary pursuits for twenty days, but this need not be established exclusively by medical evidence. The court explained that an injured person may not always obtain or rely upon medical records and that competent non-medical testimony can satisfy the statutory requirement.
The injured's testimony that he remained in bed in the hospital for about a month and was unable to move or sit was accepted by the court. Given the number, distribution and nature of the injuries (25 incised wounds), the court found it reasonable to infer the injured was in severe bodily pain and unable to follow ordinary pursuits for the requisite period. Because the injuries satisfied the statutory criteria for grievous hurt under Section 320, the court concluded that conviction under Section 326 IPC was properly recorded.
On sentencing, the court found no reason to reduce the sentence imposed under Section 326; the concurrent sentence under Section 342 was left intact.
Holding and Implications
Holding: The appeal is dismissed; the convictions and sentences awarded to the appellants under Section 326 read with Section 34 IPC and Section 342 IPC are confirmed.
Implications: The direct effect is that the appellants' convictions and concurrent sentences remain in force. The appellants, who were on bail, were ordered to surrender to custody. The opinion does not announce any broader legal innovation or binding new precedent; its reasoning affirms that non-medical evidence (including the injured person's testimony and hospital admission records) can suffice to prove the twenty-day severe-pain or inability-to-pursue-ordinary-activities requirement under Section 320 IPC.
1. The appellants Jagannath, Ram Swarup, Tokhey and Ghurra have been convicted under Section 326, read with Section 34, of the Indian Penal Code, and each of them has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years. They have also been convicted under Section 342, of the Indian Penal Code, and the sentence awarded for that is rigorous imprisonment for a term of six months each. The two sentences, however, have been made concurrent. This appeal is directed against these convictions and sentences.
2. The learned Counsel for the petitioner argued that the case made out was one under Section 324, of the Indian Penal Code, and not under Section 326, and therefore, the convictions of the appellants under Section 326 should be set aside and instead they should be convicted under Section 324 and the sentence should also be reduced. In order to appreciate this argument I would like to recite the injuries first. These are as follows:—
1. Incised wound 2 cm. × ½ cm. × scalp on back part of head 2 cm. below occipita.
2. Incised wound 5×1 cm. × skin left side neck-end of injury 1 × ½cm. below adam's apple.
3. I.W 2 × 2/10 × skin (cm.) on neck 3 cm. below central part of chin.
4. Incised wound 2½ cm. × 1 cm. × skin on left side chest upper part 16 cm. above left nipple downwards.
5. Incised wound 4 cm. × ½ cm. × skin on left side neck 4 cm. above injury No. 4.
6. Incised wound 7 cm. × 2/10 cm. × skin on outer and upper part of left arm.
7. Incised wound 7 cm. × 3 cm. × 2 cm. on upper part of left side back.
8. Incised wound 7 cm. × 7½ cm. on left side neck, 8 cm. below injury No. 7.
9. Incised wound 6½ cm. × 2½ cm. × × cm. ½ cm. side back.
10. Incised wound 6 cm. × 2 cm. × 1 cm. on left side back 5½ cm. below injury No. 9.
11. Incised wound 5 cm. × 1½ cm. × 1 cm. on medial end, on left shoulder 7 cm. below injury No. 9.
12. Incised wound 6 cm. × 1 cm. × skin just close and outer to injury 11.
13. Incised wound 3 cm. × ½ cm. × skin on outer and middle of left are 9 cm. below injury No. 11.
14. Incised wound 6 cm. × 2 cm. × skin on back and upper part of left forearm.
15. Incised wound 10 cm. × 4 cm. × skin on outer and back of the left forearm.
16. Incised wound 5½ cm. × 1½ cm. × skin on outer and upper part of right forearm.
17. Incised wound 1 cm. × ¼ cm. × skin on right side abdomen.
18. Incised wound 2 cm. × 1 cm. × ¾ cm. on the left side buttock.
19. Incised wound 14 cm. × 5 cm. × 2 cm. on left thigh outer and middle part.
20. Incised wound 13 cm. × 4½ cm. × 2 cm. left thigh 3 cm. below injury No. 19.
21. Incised wound 4 cm. × ½ cm. × skin on the left thigh 2½ cm. below injury No. 20.
22. Incised wound 1 cm. × 1/10 cm. × skin on front and upper part of right index finger.
23. Incised wound 2 cm. × 2/10 cm. × skin on front and middle part of right middle finger.
24. Incised wound 1½ cm. × 1/10 cm. × skin on front and upper part of right ring finger.
25. Incised wound 2 cm. × 2/10 cm. × skin on front and upper part of left finger. A perusal of the injuries will show that these existed on the head, neck, chest, back, shoulder, abdomen, buttock, thigh and fingers. All these injuries were incised wound caused by knives. Grievous hurt is defined by Section 320, of the Indian Penal Code. Clause Eighthly states that any hurt which endangers life or which causes the sufferer to be during the space of twenty days in severe bodily pain, or unable to follow his ordinary pursuits, will be designated as grievous. An analysis of this Clause will show that a hurt will be grievous if, (i) it endangers life or, (ii) it causes the sufferer to be during the space of twenty days in severe bodily pain or (iii) if the sufferer during the said space of twenty days is unable to follow his ordinary pursuits. These three are alternatives to each other, that is to say, a hurt will be grievous if it falls within one or more of these three. Dr. Mangat Ram stated that the injuries were not dangerous to life. He, however, further stated that he wanted to send the patient to another hospital for X-ray as X-ray facility was not available in the Bilgram Hospital but the patient was not in a position to be sent outside the hospital. The bed-head ticket showed that the patient was admitted inside the hospital on October 9 and was discharged therefrom on November 20, that is to say, he had remained inside the hospital for more than a month. The learned Counsel argued that the mere fact that the patient remained inside the hospital for more than twenty days will not make the injuries received grievous. This argument is certainly correct. The law requires that the injured person should during the space of twenty days be in severe bodily pain or unable to follow his ordinary pursuits, that is to say, the inability to follow the ordinary pursuits or the bodily pain should be for a duration of twenty days at least. He has, however, argued that these things can be established only by medical evidence and not by other evidence. Here, I am unable to see eye to eye with him. A man may receive injury and may still not get himself admitted in the hospital or put himself under the treatment of a medical practitioner. The law does not say that he must get himself admitted inside the hospital. The law only says that the prosecution must prove that for a space of twenty days at least he was in severe bodily pain or he was unable to follow his ordinary pursuits. The medical evidence may be more reliable but is not legally necessary. The injured stated that he was on his bed inside the hospital for about a month and that he was unable to move or even to sit. There is no reason why this testimony should not be accepted, looking to the nature of the injuries and the parts of the body on which these were inflicted. After all, he had received 25 incised wounds on various parts of the body and medical evidence or no medical evidence, one can imagine that he must have been in severe bodily pain. When he has deposed that he was unable even to sit or move out of the bed, it necessarily implies that he was unable to follow his ordinary pursuits also.
3. The conviction under Section 326 was, therefore, correctly recorded and the sentence does not require any reduction.
4. The appeal is dismissed. The conviction of and the sentence awarded to the appellants are confirmed. They are on bail and shall surrender to the same.
5. Appeal dismissed.
Alert