The punishment for offence of voluntarily causing grievous hurt by dangerous weapons or means is imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years and shall also be liable to fine. Learned counsel also pointed out that injuries sustained by the appellant as well as accused No. The High Court vide its judgment dated 24. Law clearly spells out that the right of private defence is available only when there is a reasonable apprehension of receiving injury. Imprisonment for 2 years, or fine of 1,000 rupees, or both. In my opinion, the appellant had committed offence punishable under Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code.
It has also come in the evidence that P. Imprisonment for 3 years, or fine, or both. Fearing that he would be killed, he snatched iron rod from the hands of Gahininath and waived iron rod in the air. The offence punishable under Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code involves the act of accused which is 'voluntary' in nature whereas in the case for the offence punishable under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code the prosecution is always under obligation to establish the requisite intention. The version of the eye witnesses regarding manner of the assault was found reliable. The appellant made a confessional statement and produced a large knife sura - article no. A co-related question that when the accused had the option to use sharp portion of the Hesso, why he chose to attack the victim from the blunt end of the sharp cutting weapon, does not need deliberation.
Tuktuki Karmakar was first taken to Mohisail Hospital and thereafter shifted to Jangipur Hospital and then again transferred to Berhampore Hospital where the victim was struggling with life for survival when the F. The accused neither filed any written statement nor adduced by any evidence in support of his defence case within the meaning of Sec. The incident in question had occurred on 26th January, 2012 at about 9. Where the accused beat the victim for about fifteen to twenty minutes by a hot iron chimta, a cooking utensil, as a result of which she died, it was held that the accused had committed an offence under this section. Did the accused cause any grievous hurt to the said Smt. As already stated, accused No. सन 2002 गोधरा रेल अग्निकांड के अगले दिन अहमदाबाद के नरोडा पाटिया इलाके में हुए नरसंहार के मामले में पूर्व मंत्री माया कोडनानी, वीएचपी नेता बाबू बजरंगी व 29 अन्य को धारा 326 के साथ अलग-अलग धाराओं के तहत मामले दर्ज किये गए थे। माया कोडनानी को एसआईटी कोर्ट द्वारा धारा 326 के तहत दस वर्ष और एक अन्य धारा के लिए अठारह वर्ष की सजा सुनाई गई थी। ध्यान दें: यहाँ पर ऊपर दिया गया उदाहरण केवल भारतीय दंड संहिता की विभिन्न धाराओं और किए गए अपराधों के तालमेल को समझने के लिए दिया गया है और इसी लिए उदाहरण को चर्चित समाचार के माध्यम से बताने की चेष्ठा की गई है। साक्ष्य के रूप में उन समाचारों के लिंक को उपर प्रस्तुत किया गया है जो उदाहरण के लिए प्रयोग किए गए है। अतः यह उदाहरण मन गढ़ंत नहीं है।.
Though the medical officers who had examined and treated P. It can extend up to 7 years' imprisonment with fine. Therefore, in my opinion, there are no circumstances to indicate that had P. The offence under section 326 is cognizable, non-bailable and non-compoundable, and is triable by magistrate of the first class. The offence punishable under Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code involves the act of accused which is 'voluntary' in nature whereas in the case for the offence punishable under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code the prosecution is always under obligation to establish the requisite intention. In the circumstances, it is not possible to say that the appellant wanted to cause death of the deceased or that he intended to cause bodily injury sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of the nature.
Where the accused caused gun shot injury on the deceased but his death was not the direct result of the injury and he died after about one and a half months and while in between he had been operated upon for which several incised wounds were made, and the second haemorrhage took place on the day when the right arm of the deceased was amputated, the accused was held liable only under section 326 and not under section 302 of the Code. Imprisonment for 10 years and fine. Spot Panchnama was drawn, statements of the witnesses were recorded and after completion of investigation chargesheet was filed in the Court of Magistrate. This section also, like the preceding one, does not apply to the case provided for under section 335 which deals with the case of voluntarily causing grievous hurt on grave and sudden provocation. Learned counsel further submitted that the fact that the appellant as well as accused No. As such, the victim Tuktuki Karmakar was first taken to Jangipur Hospital and then to Berhampur Hospital.
Though the end result or nature of injuries may be the same in these and previous sections i. At times being grief stricken because of the calamity it may not immediately occur to them that they should give a report. The other witnesses had corroborated the same and stated that it was the accused - appellant, who had opened the attack by inflicting blows on the head of the deceased by a large knife sura. Further, it was pointed out that the injuries sustained by the appellant and accused No. Where there was medical evidence on record that injuries were caused by balua, a sharp cutting weapon, and unchallenged testimony of an eye witness that he had seen the accused coming out of the house of the victim with blood-stained weapon, his conviction under section 326 was held to be proper.
Injury caused by a heated substance is not necessarily caused by fire. Then at that time somebody gave me a stroke over my head and when I turned to see the assailant, I found it was accused Dasarath. The appellant has remained in custody from 26th January, 2012 till today. Hurt caused by means of fire or a heated substance is subject to penalty irrespective of the degree of heat or the extent of the injury thereby occasioned. Similarly, when we fall, our limbs get stretched towards ground to reduce the impact of fall on vital organs of our body. The appellant was in the army service and after retirement, about 5 to 6 years prior to the incident on 30.
He was on bail throughout the trial but was released after the judgment of the High Court, there is nothing to suggest that he has abused the trust placed in him by the court. With regard to falsehood stated or embellishments added by the prosecution witnesses, it is well to remember that there is tendency amongst witnesses in our country to back up a good case by false or exaggerated version. Imprisonment for 3 years and fine. Nair, appearing for the State supported the conviction of the appellant by the trial judge as well as the High Court. Tuktuki Karmakar being the victim of assault and an injured witness, her evidence must ordinarily be ranked high and should receive credence by virtue of Hari Har Bhagwan Din and others v.
The fact that both the victim and accused are close relatives of the complainant, this is a double guarantee that the complainant when he chose to put criminal law in motion against his own brother, he would not do so falsely nor would he allow any real culprit to escape and falsely implicate his own brother. The appeal is accordingly disposed of, altering the sentence awarded. The complainant Kanal Karmakar P. Wednesday the accused Dasarath Karmakar assaulted Smt. Voluntarily causing grievous hurt by dangerous weapons or means: This section punishes the serious offence of voluntarily causing grievous hurt by dangerous weapons or means.