Gauhati HC: DRT Has to Dispose of Application under Section 17 of SARFAESI Act as per RDB Act  ||  Kerala HC: Showing or Waving Black Flag to a Person Cannot Amount to Defamation  ||  Del. HC: Merit Based Review of Arb. Award Involving Reappraisal of Factual Findings is Impermissible  ||  Del. HC: It is the Product and Not the Technology Used that Determines HSN Classification  ||  P&H HC: Provis. of Punjab Recruitment of Ex-Servicemen (First Amendment) Rules are Unconstitutional  ||  Cal HC: High Time that Irretrievable Breakdown of Marriage be Read as Grounds of Desertion & Cruelty  ||  Supreme Court: Third Party Can File SLP Against Quashing Of Criminal Proceedings  ||  SC: Absolute Ownership in Property as Per HSA Can’t be Claimed by Woman with Limited Interest  ||  SC: Can’t Forego Fundamental Requirements of Election of Society in Absence of Specific Provisions  ||  SC: Special Efforts Should be Made to Identify Women Prisoners Eligible for Release u/s 479 of BNSS    

Rakesh Vs. The State of Delhi - (High Court of Delhi) (30 Aug 2018)

Kitchen knife and Sil Batta are sufficiently dangerous weapons, if used on vital parts of a person's body can cause serious damage

MANU/DE/3115/2018

Criminal

In present matter, the accused challenges the judgment passed by the trial Court convicting him for the offences under Sections 326 and 342 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). The accused was also directed to pay Rs. 30,000 as compensation to the victim under Section 357A of Cr. PC. The victim questions the impugned judgment in so far as the trial Court has acquitted the accused of the offence under Section 307 of IPC and converted that offence into one under Section 326 of IPC and sentenced him accordingly.

The Court is of the view that, while the trial Court got it right by confirming the guilt of the accused for the offence under Section 342 of IPC, the trial Court went completely wrong in acquitting him of the offence under Section 307 of IPC. The ingredients of the offence punishable under Section 307 of IPC stand fulfilled in the present case. To bring home the charge that the accused in fact intended to murder the victim, it has to be shown by the prosecution that the accused had both the intention and the knowledge that the injuries caused by him would in fact result in the death of the injured person. In Sarju Prasad v. State of Bihar, the Supreme Court held that merely the fact that the injury actually inflicted by the accused did not cut any vital organ of the victim, is not in itself sufficient to take the act out of the purview of Section 307 of IPC.

If the evidence in the present case is carefully perused, it is apparent that the weapons used in the present case were indeed dangerous weapons. The Court is unable to appreciate the finding of the trial Court that the kitchen knife and the Sil Batta were not sufficiently dangerous weapons or that if the accused really wanted to kill the victim, he should have used 'more dangerous' weapons.

Merely because the kitchen knife and Sil Batta are readily available in most homes does not make them any less dangerous. A kitchen knife used on the vital parts of a person's body can cause serious damage, like in the instant case where there are serious grievous incised wounds on the neck of the victim, and this itself is a clear demonstration of how dangerous a weapon a kitchen knife really is.

The victim has continued to suffer the consequences of grievous injuries. The evidence on record proves beyond reasonable doubt that, the accused intended to murder the victim by causing her grievous injuries. Consequently, it is held that the trial Court erred in acquitting the accused of the offence under Section 307 of IPC. His conviction for the offence under Section 326 of IPC is therefore set aside and the accused is hereby convicted for the offence punishable under Section 307 of IPC. The Court refers the case of the victim to the Delhi State Legal Services Authority ('DSLSA') for determination of the appropriate compensation payable to her under the Victims Compensation Scheme under Section 357A of Cr. PC.

Relevant : Sarju Prasad v. State of BiharMANU/SC/0342/1964

Tags : GRIEVOUS INJURY   CONVICTION   LEGALITY  

Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2024 - All Rights Reserved