'Bamboo Stick Or Rod Not An Instrument Likely To Cause Death': Calcutta High Court Reduces Man's Sentence
The Calcutta High Court has held that while a fracture injury squarely falls within the definition of “grievous hurt” under the Indian Penal Code, an assault with a bamboo stick or rod cannot automatically attract the offence of causing grievous hurt by a “dangerous weapon” under Section 326 IPC. Modifying the conviction of six persons, the Court ruled that such objects are not inherently instruments “likely to cause death”, and therefore altered their conviction to Section 325 IPC and reduced the sentence.
Delivering judgment in a criminal revision, Justice Ajoy Kumar Mukherjee partly allowed the plea challenging the concurrent findings of the trial and appellate courts. While upholding the prosecution's case that the accused had jointly assaulted the victim and caused a fracture to his right elbow, the Court held that the legal ingredients of Section 326 were not satisfied.
The case stemmed from a complaint lodged in March 2010 at Amherst Street Police Station, where the victim alleged that the accused, due to previous enmity, abused him and assaulted him with bamboo sticks and iron rods. His wife and mother-in-law, who rushed to rescue him, were also injured. He was immediately taken to the hospital, where a medical examination and X-ray revealed a fracture. After investigation, police filed a chargesheet under Section 326/34 IPC.
During trial, the prosecution examined the injured complainant, his wife, his mother-in-law, multiple doctors and the investigating officer. The trial court found their testimonies consistent and convicted the accused, sentencing them to one year's rigorous imprisonment with fine. The appellate court affirmed the conviction.
Before the High Court, the petitioners argued that there were several investigative lapses, including absence of independent witnesses, no seizure of weapons, lack of proper proof of the medical report, and contradictions regarding the time and place of occurrence. They further contended that even if the prosecution case was accepted, the injuries did not meet the statutory threshold of Section 326 IPC.
The High Court, however, refused to disturb the concurrent findings on facts. It noted that the FIR was promptly lodged, the injured witness's testimony was reliable, and his wife and mother-in-law had corroborated the assault. The Court observed that minor discrepancies were natural given the lapse of time and did not dent the prosecution case. Relying on medical evidence, the Court held that the fracture clearly constituted “grievous hurt” under Section 320 IPC and that the accused had acted in furtherance of common intention.
However, on the question of the nature of the weapon, the Court drew a legal distinction. It observed that to invoke Section 326 IPC, the instrument used must be inherently dangerous and of such a nature that death would be a probable consequence of its use. A bamboo stick or rod, the Court reasoned, could not be categorised as a weapon “likely to cause death” merely because it resulted in a fracture.
Clarifying the position, the Court observed that “the instrument by virtue of its very nature should be such that one can predicate that the probable result of its use will be death,” and that a blow on the elbow with a bamboo stick did not meet this threshold. It therefore concluded that the offence would properly fall under Section 325 IPC (voluntarily causing grievous hurt), and not Section 326.
Accordingly, the Court altered the conviction to Section 325/34 IPC and reduced the sentence to six months' simple imprisonment, while maintaining the fine of ₹5,000 for each accused. The petitioners were directed to surrender before the trial court within four weeks to serve the modified sentence.
Case: Goutam Saha & Ors. Vs. The State of West Bengal & Anr.
Case No: CRR 3174 of 2018