Supreme Court: Lacerated wounds and Contusion are possible only by hard and blunt object and not by sharp-edged weapon

The injuries suffered by the complainant which have been reproduced in the judgment of the High Court show that there were three lacerated wounds and one contusion. One of the injuries that is injury No. 1 on X-ray examination was found to be grievous as there was a fracture. It appears that the prosecution allegation was that a spade (phawra) was used as an instrument for an offence and taking a spade as a sharp-edged weapon the conviction of the appellant was maintained under Section 326 IPC. {Para 2}

3. It could not be doubted that the injuries in the nature of lacerated wound or contusion could not be caused by an impact of a sharp-edged weapon on the human body. Such injuries are only possible by the use of a hard and blunt object. May be that the spade was the instrument of an offence but it might have been used in a manner in which the hard and blunt part of it came in contact with the body of the injured person. In view of the nature of injuries sustained on the complainant the conviction of the appellant under Section 326 IPC could not be sustained. At best he could be convicted for an offence under Section 325 IPC.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Criminal Appeal No. 224 of 1978

Decided On: 23.01.1987

Ganga Prasad Vs. State of U.P.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

G.L. Oza and M.M. Dutt, JJ.

Citation: 1987 Supreme Court Cases (Cri) 345,MANU/SC/1059/1987,1987 SCC 2 232.

1. This appeal has come to this Court on special leave granted by this Court against conviction of the appellant under Section 326 IPC who is sentenced to undergo imprisonment for four years. The leave was granted on the question of sentence and on the question of offence.

2. The injuries suffered by the complainant which have been reproduced in the judgment of the High Court show that there were three lacerated wounds and one contusion. One of the injuries that is injury No. 1 on X-ray examination was found to be grievous as there was a fracture. It appears that the prosecution allegation was that a spade (phawra) was used as an instrument for an offence and taking a spade as a sharp-edged weapon the conviction of the appellant was maintained under Section 326 IPC.

3. It could not be doubted that the injuries in the nature of lacerated wound or contusion could not be caused by an impact of a sharp-edged weapon on the human body. Such injuries are only possible by the use of a hard and blunt object. May be that the spade was the instrument of an offence but it might have been used in a manner in which the hard and blunt part of it came in contact with the body of the injured person. In view of the nature of injuries sustained on the complainant the conviction of the appellant under Section 326 IPC could not be sustained. At best he could be convicted for an offence under Section 325 IPC. Along with the special leave petition an application for compounding has also been filed and the matter has been compounded by the complainant. An offence under Section 325 is compoundable with the permission of the court.

4. The incident was of 1971 and the parties are neighbours living in the same house. In view of these circumstances in our opinion it is a fit case for grant of permission to compound the offence, the application for compounding, is, therefore, accepted. The appeal is therefore, allowed, conviction and sentence passed against the appellant is altered to under Section 325 IPC and the application for compounding is allowed. The conviction and sentence passed against the appellant is, therefore, set aside. He is acquitted of the charge levelled against him.

Print Page