To Attract Section 324 IPC, Voluntary Hurt Should Be Caused By An Instrument Of Shooting, Stabbing Or Cutting: Jharkhand HC
|The Jharkhand High Court observed that to attract Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code, voluntary hurt should be caused by an instrument of shooting, stabbing or cutting.
The Court was hearing an appeal challenging the order of conviction and sentencing of Appellants who were found guilty under Sections 307/34, 323/34, 324/34, and 341/34 of the Indian Penal Code.
The bench of Justice Ananda Sen and Justice Subhash Chand observed, “To attract Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code, a voluntary hurt should be caused by an instrument of shooting and stabbing or cutting. Definitely use of the said instrument can cause death.”
Advocate Ram Chandra Prasad Sah appeared for the Appellant and APP Vishwanath Roy appeared for the Respondent.
Brief Facts-
The case of the prosecution revolves around the written report filed by Ramjee Prasad, alleging that he was assaulted by Chotu Kalindi, Bhalu Kalindi, Musru Kalindi, and Babulal Kalindi. They demanded money for liquor, and upon refusal, assaulted Ramjee Prasad and his son with weapons including swords and sticks. The incident led to injuries to both Ramjee Prasad and his son. Based on the report a case was registered under various sections of the Indian Penal Code. After investigation, charges were framed against the appellants, who were subsequently convicted by the Sessions Court and sentenced accordingly. Now the appellants have appealed against the conviction and sentence.
The Court said that the appellant cannot take the benefit of the statement made by the witness where he stated that the injury was caused because of an assault, but did not take the name of the person who assaulted him and observed, “Not taking the name of the appellant before the doctor is of no relevance when he has narrated before the doctor as to how incident had taken place, i.e., how the informant was assaulted.”
The Court further noted that the case does not qualify under the exception provided in Section 334 of the Indian Penal Code, as there was no grave and sudden provocation from the side of the informant. The Court observed, “if the accused attempts to demand money from someone who refuses to comply, and then assaults that person, it cannot be justified as an act of grave and sudden provocation.”
The Court noted that there is no record that there was any common intention of all the persons and admittedly, the other appellants were armed with lathi and it is not their case that they had assaulted on the head but rather on other part of the body thus according to the Court appellants Chhotu Kalindi, Musru Kalindi and Babu Lall Kalindi, have committed an offence under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code.
Accordingly, the Court held that the prosecution has proved the charge against the appellant Bhalu Kalindi for an offence under Sections 324 and 341 of the Indian Penal Code and appellants Chhotu Kalindi, Musru Kalindi and Babu Lall Kalindi under Sections 323 and 341 of the Indian Penal Code.
Finally, the Court partly allowed the modification in the judgment of conviction and order of sentence.
Cause Title: Chhotu Kalindi v. State of Jharkhand