Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

8. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied on decision of this Court in Mareddigari Suryanarayana v. State of A.P.,1 wherein this Court took the view of altering the conviction from Section 326 of „the IPC.,‟ to Section 335 of „the IPC‟. Section 335 of „the IPC.,‟ lays down as follows:

"355. Voluntarily causing grievous hurt on provocation- whoever voluntarily causes grievous hurt on grave and sudden provocation, if he neither intends nor knows himself to be likely to cause grievous hurt to any person other than the person who gave the provocation, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to four years, or with fine which may extend to two thousand rupees, or with both."

9. A careful reading of Section 335 of „the IPC.,‟ it would be clear that Section 335 of „the IPC.,‟ would be attracting to a case where the person voluntarily causes grievous hurt on grave and sudden provocation, if he neither intends nor knows himself to be likely to cause grievous hurt to other person other than the person, who gave the provocation. In the instant case where the de-facto complainant/P.W.1 had not provoked Accused No.1 he was just briefing his father about the amounts towards the agricultural output. MANU/AP/0368/2024 Dr. YLR, J Dated 26.03.2025 The petitioner attacked the P.W.1 with an axe. An ordinary and reasonable prudent man would know the fact that attacking with an axe on the head of the de-facto complainant definitely cause grievous hurt. Therefore, this Court is unable to accept the request made by the learned counsel for the petitioner to alter the conviction from Section 326 of „the IPC.,‟ to Section 335 of „the IPC‟. The facts and circumstances mentioned in Mareddigari Suryanarayana are altogether different from the facts and circumstances of the instant case. Therefore, that ratio cannot be applied in the instant case.

10. The learned counsel for the petitioner further relied on the decision in T.K.Binu v. State of Kerala Crl.Rev.Pet.No.966 of 2001 dated 29.10.2012 wherein the High Court of Kerala altered Section of law from Section 326 of „the IPC.,‟ to Section 335 of „the IPC.,‟ and sentenced the petitioner to undergo imprisonment till the rising of the Court and pay a fine of Rs.20,000/- as compensation to the injured therein.

11. The facts and circumstances of the case in T.K.Binu and the instant case are different. Therefore, the decision of High Court of Kerala cannot be followed in this case. Therefore, the conviction under Section 326 of „the IPC.," shall be maintained.