1998 JTR(P&H) 620
1998 3 AICLR 3 ; 1998 AIR(P&H) 2381 ; 1998 3 Crimes(HC) 37 ; 1998 CrLJ 3602 ; 1998 4 JT 522 ; 1998 3 RCR(Cri) 451 ; 1998 4 Scale 52 ; 2009 14 SCC 710 ; 1998 SCC(Cri) 1477
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
G.T. Nanavati and S.P. Kurdukar, JJ.
A.C. Gangadhar - Appellant
Versus
State of Karnataka - Respondent
Criminal Appeal Nos. 718-19 of 1991.
Decided On : 29 April, 1998
The nature of the injury and the evidence of aggression influenced the court's decision to confirm the conviction under Section 326 Indian Penal Code and enhance the sentence.
(A) The case centers on the application of Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code, which pertains to voluntarily causing grievous hurt by dangerous weapons or means. The court analyzed whether the act of striking a victim on the forehead with an axe, resulting in a fracture, constitutes a grievous injury under this section. The statutory application was further examined in the context of the right of private defence, determining whether the accused's actions were a justified response to a threat or an act of aggression.
(B) The right of private defence is unavailable to an aggressor who initiates an assault. For a conviction under Section 326, the prosecution must prove the use of a dangerous weapon and the resulting nature of the injury as grievous.
Facts of the case:
The appellant was convicted of causing an injury to a witness's head using an axe. The trial court initially sentenced the appellant to one month's imprisonment, which was subsequently enhanced to one year by the High Court. The appellant challenged both the conviction and the sentence, claiming the injury was caused in the exercise of the right of private defence. It was alleged that the assault occurred after the victims protested against the accused cutting a tree.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the evidence of the victim, corroborated by medical reports, proved that the blow was delivered with great force, causing a fracture. The court observed that the accused and his companions were the aggressors who started the assault, thereby disqualifying them from claiming the benefit of private defence. The sentence of one year was deemed proportionate to the nature of the injury.
Issues:
Whether the conviction under Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code is sustainable based on the nature of the injury and the weapon used; and whether the appellant is entitled to the benefit of the right of private defence.
Ratio Decidendi:
Since the accused was the aggressor in the conflict, the plea of private defence is legally untenable. The use of an axe to cause a skull fracture satisfies the requirements for conviction under Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code.
Result:
Appeals dismissed; conviction and enhanced sentence confirmed; bail cancelled.
(A) The case centers on the application of Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code, which pertains to voluntarily causing grievous hurt by dangerous weapons or means. The court analyzed whether the act of striking a victim on the forehead with an axe, resulting in a fracture, constitutes a grievous injury under this section. The statutory application was further examined in the context of the right of private defence, determining whether the accused's actions were a justified response to a threat or an act of aggression.
(B) The right of private defence is unavailable to an aggressor who initiates an assault. For a conviction under Section 326, the prosecution must prove the use of a dangerous weapon and the resulting nature of the injury as grievous.
Facts of the case:
The appellant was convicted of causing an injury to a witness's head using an axe. The trial court initially sentenced the appellant to one month's imprisonment, which was subsequently enhanced to one year by the High Court. The appellant challenged both the conviction and the sentence, claiming the injury was caused in the exercise of the right of private defence. It was alleged that the assault occurred after the victims protested against the accused cutting a tree.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the evidence of the victim, corroborated by medical reports, proved that the blow was delivered with great force, causing a fracture. The court observed that the accused and his companions were the aggressors who started the assault, thereby disqualifying them from claiming the benefit of private defence. The sentence of one year was deemed proportionate to the nature of the injury.
Issues:
Whether the conviction under Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code is sustainable based on the nature of the injury and the weapon used; and whether the appellant is entitled to the benefit of the right of private defence.
Ratio Decidendi:
Since the accused was the aggressor in the conflict, the plea of private defence is legally untenable. The use of an axe to cause a skull fracture satisfies the requirements for conviction under Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code.
Result:
Appeals dismissed; conviction and enhanced sentence confirmed; bail cancelled.
For the Appellant :Mr. Naresh Kaushik and Ms. Lalita Kaushik, Advocates.
For the Respondent:Mr. Ashok Kumar Sharma and Mr. M. Veerappa, Advocates.
JUDGMENT
G.T. Nanavati, J. - The appellant was convicted by the trial court for the offence punishable under Section 326 Indian Penal Code 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 Indian Penal Code. 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.
Appeals dismissed.