Wooden Stick Can Be Treated As Weapon For The Purpose Of Section 326 IPC: Kerala HC Refuses To Grant Anticipatory Bail
The Kerala High Court has observed that a wooden stick can be treated as a weapon for the purpose of Section 326 IPC while refusing to grant anticipatory bail to the Petitioner.
The Court further observed that under Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), no description of the weapon is provided. The offence would be attracted if a person intentionally caused grievous hurt to another using an instrument as a weapon. The Court emphasised the phrase “any instrument which is used as a weapon” and noted that the phrase gives a broader scope to the provision.
The Bench of Justice Ziyad Rahman A.A. asserted, “In Section 326 IPC, there is no description of any weapon as such. As per the said provision, the offence would be attracted if a person voluntarily causes grievous hurt by the use of any instrument for shooting or stabbing, cutting or instrument which is used as a weapon of offence, and is likely to cause death. The expression “any instrument which is used as a weapon”, gives a significantly broader scope to the said provision, capable of taking within it, any instrument which does not have the characteristics of a weapon under normal circumstances, provided the same was used as a weapon to cause grievous hurt. Thus, the emphasis is on any “instrument which used as a weapon” and it is not necessary that the instrument as such should be a weapon in its original form”.
Advocate M.R. Sasith appeared for the Petitioner and Senior Public Prosecutor Sreeja V appeared for the Respondent.
The complainant obstructed the Petitioner, from attacking his grandson in front of the Petitioner’s house. The Petitioner allegedly trespassed into the house of the complainant seeking revenge and attacked the complainant with a wooden stick, causing a fracture on his hip. The Petitioner was accused under Sections 294(b), 447 324 and 326 of the IPC. An FIR was registered but the Petitioner apprehended arrest. The Petitioner then filed an Application before the Court seeking anticipatory bail.
The Court did not accept the contention of the Petitioner and held that he has to cooperate with the investigation by making himself available for interrogation. The Court laid down a set of directions while noting that the case is not fit for granting anticipatory bail.
“In the result, this application is disposed of with the following directions:- 1) The petitioner shall surrender before the Investigation officer within a period of two weeks from today, for subjecting himself to interrogation; 2) Upon such surrender and after interrogation, if any, the petitioner shall be produced by the investigation officer before the Jurisdictional Magistrate on the very same day of surrender itself, to enable the petitioner to seek bail; 3) The Jurisdictional Magistrate upon production of the accused and filing of application for bail, may consider the bail application in accordance with law and, if possible, dispose of the same on the very same day of filing of the said application, subject to such conditions, as deem fit”, the Court observed.
Accordingly, the Court disposed of the Application.
Cause Title: Vineesh v. State of Kerala (2023:KER:43540)
