Allahabad HC: Victim Compensation under POCSO Act Cannot be Withheld For Lack of Injury Report  ||  MP HC: Diverting Goods From Delivery Point is Misappropriation under S.407 IPC  ||  Delhi HC: Bar Associations are Not ‘State’ under Article 12 as They Do Not Perform Public Functions  ||  Delhi HC: Pending Probate Proceedings Do Not Prevent Filing FIR For Alleged Will Forgery  ||  Ker HC: Dismissal For Default Alone Cannot Justify Rejecting Restoration Plea For Lack of Vigilance  ||  SC: Disclosure Statements Alone Cannot Secure Conviction Without a Complete Chain of Evidence  ||  Supreme Court Orders Reporting of Student Suicides and Bans Denial of Classes or Exams  ||  SC: Govt Can Exclude Overqualified Candidates From Posts Requiring Lower Qualifications  ||  SC: Contracts to Hire Global Speakers For Media Summits are Not Taxable as Event Management Services  ||  SC: Mandatory Injunction Suit Alone is Not Maintainable When Plaintiff’s Title is Disputed    

T. Devendiran v. State - (High Court of Madras) (24 Jun 2016)

Hitting with a gun not the same as shooting with one

Criminal

The Madras High Court deleted a charge under Section 25 of the Arms Act against an accused who attacked the complainant physically with a gun.

Instead of shooting the complainant, the accused had bashed him on the head with the butt of the gun. No shots were fired in the altercation. Section 25 of the Act is a provision making punishable a wide variety of gun-related activities, including: converting imitation firearms into operational weapons; or indulges in the sale and manufacture of ammunition.

The court noted that the the accused was licensed to own the gun and only caused a “simple injury”, not a gunshot wound. As such, the matter was outside the remit of Section 25 of the Arms Act.

Tags : ARMS ACT   ASSAULT   SIMPLE INJURY  

Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2026 - All Rights Reserved