Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: section 325 indian penal code in Man Singh & Ors vs State N.C.T Of Delhi on 22 February, 2016Matching Fragments
57. In fact, the manner in which the incident took place does not suggest that the appellants had an intention or knowledge of inflicting injuries which would attract provisions of Section 308 IPC. Having regard to all these circumstances, I am not persuaded to hold that the appellants could be convicted for the offence punishable under Section 308/34 IPC. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the fact that nature of the injuries inflicted upon the aforenamed three persons was not simple, the conviction, therefore, ought to have been under Section 325 IPC.
58. The issue whether the offence falls within the purview of Section 308 IPC or it is only an offence under Section 325 IPC has been considered by the Supreme Court after discussing the law in detail in the case of Som Raj @ Soma Vs. State of H.P reported in JT 2013 (3) SC 387, wherein observed as under:-
"18. In Virsa Singh v. State of Punjab AIR 1958 SC 465, Vivian Bose, J. speaking for this Court, explained the meaning and scope of Clause (3), thus (at p. 1500):
The prosecution must prove the following facts before it can bring a case under Section 300, "thirdly". First, it must establish quite objectively, that a bodily injury is present; secondly the nature of the injury must be proved. These are purely objective investigations. It must be proved that there was an intention to inflict that particular injury, that is to say, that it was not accidental or unintentional or that some other kind of injury was intended. Once these three elements are proved to be present, the enquiry proceeds further, and fourthly it must be proved that the injury of the type just described made up of the three elements set out above was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. This part of the enquiry is purely objective and inferential and has nothing to do with the intention of the offender.
60. Now, the facts of the instant case have to be considered in the aforementioned legal guidelines. Admittedly, there was no pre-meditation and no planning to commit this offence, the injuries though opined to be grievous on the person of the three injured named above but caused by blunt object and the doctor, in the present case, has not stated that the injury was sufficient, in the ordinary course of nature, to cause death. The occurrence took place on the spur of the moment and all these facts gave rise to only one inference that there was no intention or knowledge of the appellants to cause death or to cause such injury which was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. Therefore, in my considered opinion, the offence committed by the appellants would fall under Section 325 IPC and not under Section 308 IPC. The learned Trial Court has not considered this aspect correctly.
61. In view of the legal position discussed above and the facts and circumstances of the case, these appeals deserve to be partly allowed. Accordingly, conviction of the appellants under Sections 148 and 308/149 IPC is hereby set aside. The appellants are convicted under Section 325/34 IPC. So far as the sentence aspect is concerned, the benefit of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, was extended to the appellants by the learned Trial Court vide order on sentence dated 11.09.2002. No similar offence has been committed by the appellants during the probation period.