1998 JTR(SC) 553
1998 3 AICLR 3 ; 1998 AIR(SC) 2381 ; 1998 AIR(SCW) 2367 ; 1998 2 ALD(Cri)(SC) 277 ; 1999 38 AllCriC 59 ; 1998 CriLR 465 ; 1998 3 Crimes(SC) 37 ; 1998 CrLJ 3602 ; 1998 4 JT 522 ; 1999 2 MWN(Cri) 394 ; 1998 3 RCR(Cri) 451 ; 1998 4 Scale 52 ; 2009 14 SCC 710 ; 1998 SCC(Cri) 1477 ; 1999 1 UJ 389 ; 1998 KHC 1544 ; 1998 5 Supreme 353
1998(5) Supreme 353
Supreme Court of India
(From Karnataka High Court)
G.T. Nanavati & S.P. Kurdukar, JJ.
Shri A.C. Gangadhar -Appellant
versus
State of Karnataka -Respondent
Criminal Appeal Nos. 718-719 of 1991
Decided on 29-4-1998
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellant : Mr. Naresh Kaushik and Ms. Lalita Kaushik, Advocates.
For the Respondents : Mr. Ashok Kumar Sharma and Mr. M. Veerappa, Advocates.
Important Point
The appellant is rightly convicted u/s. 326 IPC and his sentence of one year imprisonment is not excessive and as he was an aggressor there is no scope for giving any benefit of right of private defence to him.
Act Referred :INDIAN PENAL CODE : S.100, S.326
(A) The offences under Section 326 Indian Penal Code involve causing grievous hurt with a dangerous weapon or means. The present case invokes this provision in the context of an assault where an accused used an axe to inflict a head injury resulting in a fracture, leading to a conviction under Section 326. This must be read alongside the general principles of private defence under Section 100 Indian Penal Code, which limits the right to defence where the accused is the aggressor. The State and the appellant both filed appeals, highlighting the interplay between conviction, sentencing, and the right to defend against allegations of excessive punishment.
(B) Key legal principles include: the requirement of grave and sudden provocation for private defence to apply, the restriction on the right of private defence when the accused is the aggressor, and the appellate court's power to enhance sentences. The nature and severity of the injury are central to determining the appropriate charge and sentence.
Facts of the case:
The appellant was convicted for causing grievous hurt using an axe on the victim's head, resulting in a fracture. Both the trial and high court found the appellant and his companions were the aggressors, having assaulted the victim and his children after a dispute over tree-cutting. The injury was corroborated by medical evidence.
Findings of Court:
The courts accepted the medical evidence and testimony, confirming the injury was caused with great force. The High Court enhanced the sentence from one month to one year, a decision upheld by this bench as the injury warranted a proportionate punishment.
Issues:
Whether the injury caused with an axe constitutes grievous hurt under Section 326 IPC. Whether the right of private defence applies when the accused is the initial aggressor. Whether the enhanced sentence is excessive.
Ratio Decidendi:
The injury was severe and premeditated, negating any claim of private defence as the appellant was the aggressor. The courts below correctly applied Section 326, and the sentence, while severe, was not manifestly excessive given the nature of the injury.
Result:
The appeals are dismissed, the conviction under Section 326 is confirmed, and the appellant is ordered to surrender to serve the enhanced sentence.
(A) The offences under Section 326 Indian Penal Code involve causing grievous hurt with a dangerous weapon or means. The present case invokes this provision in the context of an assault where an accused used an axe to inflict a head injury resulting in a fracture, leading to a conviction under Section 326. This must be read alongside the general principles of private defence under Section 100 Indian Penal Code, which limits the right to defence where the accused is the aggressor. The State and the appellant both filed appeals, highlighting the interplay between conviction, sentencing, and the right to defend against allegations of excessive punishment.
(B) Key legal principles include: the requirement of grave and sudden provocation for private defence to apply, the restriction on the right of private defence when the accused is the aggressor, and the appellate court's power to enhance sentences. The nature and severity of the injury are central to determining the appropriate charge and sentence.
Facts of the case:
The appellant was convicted for causing grievous hurt using an axe on the victim's head, resulting in a fracture. Both the trial and high court found the appellant and his companions were the aggressors, having assaulted the victim and his children after a dispute over tree-cutting. The injury was corroborated by medical evidence.
Findings of Court:
The courts accepted the medical evidence and testimony, confirming the injury was caused with great force. The High Court enhanced the sentence from one month to one year, a decision upheld by this bench as the injury warranted a proportionate punishment.
Issues:
Whether the injury caused with an axe constitutes grievous hurt under Section 326 IPC. Whether the right of private defence applies when the accused is the initial aggressor. Whether the enhanced sentence is excessive.
Ratio Decidendi:
The injury was severe and premeditated, negating any claim of private defence as the appellant was the aggressor. The courts below correctly applied Section 326, and the sentence, while severe, was not manifestly excessive given the nature of the injury.
Result:
The appeals are dismissed, the conviction under Section 326 is confirmed, and the appellant is ordered to surrender to serve the enhanced sentence.
Judgment
Nanavati, J.-The appellant was convicted by the trial court for the offence punishable under Section 326 IPC and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for one month and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/-. Not satisfied with the conviction and sentence the appellant filed an appeal along with other convicted accused to the High Court. The State had also filed appeal against the acquittal of all the accused and for enhancement of sentence of appellant. The High Court confirmed the conviction under Section 326 and enhanced the sentence from one month to one year. The appellant has, therefore, approached this Court challenging the order of sentence and also his conviction.
2. What has been proved against the appellant is that he caused an injury with an axe on the head of P.W. 5. The evidence of P.W. 5 has been believed by both the courts and it also stands corroborated by the medical evidence. We find no good reason not to accept the finding recorded by the courts below and confirm the conviction of the appellant under Section 326 IPC. The nature of the injury indicates that blow must have been given by A. 1 with great force on the forehead of P.W. 5 as it had caused a fracture. Therefore, the conviction of the appellant under Section 326 is quite proper. Considering the nature of injury caused to P.W. 5 we do not think that the sentence imposed upon the appellant can be said to be excessive.
3. The learned counsel for the appellant, however, submitted that even if it is believed that A. 1 had caused grievous hurt he could not have been held guilty either under Section 326 or for any other offence as the said injury was caused by him in exercise of right of private defence. Both the courts have come to the conclusion that the accused and his companions were the aggressors and had started the assault on the deceased and his children and that too because they protested against the accused cutting the tree. Therefore, there was no scope for giving any benefit of right of private defence to the appellant. We, therefore, see no reason to interfere with the order passed by the High Court. The appeals are, therefore, dismissed. The appellant was released on bail during the pendency of the appeals. His bail is cancelled. He is ordered to surrender to custody forthwith to serve out the remaining part of the sentence.
(N.K.R.) Appeals dismissed.
**********
Parallel Citations of other Journals :
A. C. Gangadhar v. State of Karnataka, 1998(5) Supreme 353 : JT 1998(4) SC 522 : 1998(4) Scale 52 : 1998(V) AD (SC) 176 : AIR 1998 SC 2381 : 1998 SCC (Cri.) 1477 : 1998 Cri. L.J. 3602 : 1998(3) Crimes 37
00026