- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Avinash Shetty v. State Of Karnataka And Another
Factual and Procedural Background
The appellant was accused of assaulting PW 1, Dr. Ishwaran, with a sword at about 11:45 p.m. on 25 May 1993. The IInd Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mangalore, convicted him under Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and sentenced him to two years’ rigorous imprisonment and a fine of ₹5,000 (or three months’ simple imprisonment in default). The conviction and sentence were successively affirmed by the Sessions Judge, Dakshina Kannada, and by the High Court in revision. The appellant then approached the Supreme Court, which issued leave to appeal.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the injury described as “Injury 1” amounted to “grievous hurt” within the meaning of Section 320 IPC, thereby justifying conviction under Section 326 IPC.
- If the injury was not grievous, whether the conviction should be altered to an offence under Section 324 IPC.
- Whether, upon alteration of the charge to Section 324 IPC, the offence could be compounded in terms of Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC).
Arguments of the Parties
Appellant's Arguments
- The injuries sustained by PW 1 were not “grievous” because there was no fracture or other condition enumerated in Section 320 IPC.
- Injuries 2 to 4 were admittedly simple, and Injury 1, despite the doctor’s opinion, did not meet the statutory criteria for grievous hurt.
- Consequently, conviction under Section 326 IPC was unsustainable, and at most the appellant was liable under Section 324 IPC.
The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the respondents' legal arguments.
Table of Precedents Cited
No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Supreme Court scrutinised the wound certificate and noted that neither the middle nor the index finger had suffered a fracture, nor was there evidence of prolonged bodily pain, inability to pursue ordinary activities for twenty days, or permanent impairment of any member or joint. As none of the statutory categories of “grievous hurt” under Section 320 IPC were satisfied, the Court held that the doctor’s classification of Injury 1 as grievous was “erroneous” and must be ignored.
Having found the injury to be only “hurt” caused by a dangerous weapon, the Court concluded that the proper provision was Section 324 IPC. An application to compound the offence under Section 320 CrPC was before the Court, and counsel for the complainant expressly consented. Because Section 324 IPC is compoundable with the permission of the court, the Supreme Court permitted such compounding.
Holding and Implications
Conviction and sentence under Section 326 IPC are set aside; offence treated under Section 324 IPC and permitted to be compounded.
The immediate effect is that the appellant’s conviction and two-year sentence no longer stand, and the case is disposed of upon compounding between the parties. The decision turns on statutory interpretation of “grievous hurt” and does not establish a new precedent beyond reaffirming the definitional boundaries of Sections 320, 324, and 326 IPC.
Order
1. Leave granted.
2. The appellant was convicted by the IInd Additional CJM, Mangalore for the offence punishable under Section 326 IPC. The allegation was that on 25-5-1993 at about 11.45 p.m he assaulted PW 1 Dr. Ishwaran by using sword. The appellant was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay a fine of Rs 5000, in default, to undergo SI for three months. The conviction and sentence was challenged by the appellant before the Sessions Judge, Dakshina Kannada, Mangalore and the Sessions Court confirmed the conviction and sentence. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant filed revision before the High Court and the same was dismissed. The conviction and sentence of the appellant under Section 326 IPC is challenged before us.
3. We heard learned counsel for the appellant and counsel for the respondents.
4. The counsel for the appellant submitted that the injuries sustained by PW 1 were not grievous in nature and the conviction of the appellant for the offence under Section 326 IPC is not sustainable in law. Our attention was drawn to the wound certificate prepared by PW 2. There were four injuries on the body of the injured, PW 1. Admittedly Injuries 2 to 4 were simple in nature, the dispute was with regard to Injury 1. Description of Injury 1 is as follows:
An incised wound measuring 3″ × 1″ over the left hand and the nerve of the middle finger, index finger and the fourth finger was cut.
5. The doctor in his cross-examination stated that he had not noticed any fracture of the bone. He also stated that Injury 1 was grievous in nature.
6. By going through the description of the wound certificate, it is not correct to say that the injury was a grievous one, as there was no fracture to the bone either of the middle finger or of the index finger of the left hand. There is also no case that the victim would have suffered severe body pain during the space of twenty days or would have been unable to follow his ordinary pursuits for that period. There is also no case that there was permanent privation of sight of either eye, permanent privation of hearing of either ear or privation of any member or joint or destruction or permanent impairing of the power of any member or joint. On a plain description of the wound, it would not be grievous hurt coming under Section 320 IPC. The opinion of the doctor that Injury 1 was grievous in nature was erroneous and it is only to be ignored.
7. Therefore the offence committed by the appellant would only come under Section 324 IPC. An application for compounding the offence under Section 320 CrPC is filed. The counsel for the complainant, PW 1 stated that he has no objection to compounding the offence.
8. In view of the submissions made by the counsel on either side, the offence committed under Section 324 IPC is permitted to be compounded. The conviction and sentence entered against the appellant is set aside.
9. The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Alert