Conviction under Section 326 IPC was altered to Section 324 IPC where injury was not grievous hurt.

On 4 July 1995, the petitioner and three others allegedly entered the house of Dayanidhi Sahu (P.W.1) armed with a sword and iron pipes, and assaulted P.Ws.1–5. Banamali Sahu (P.W.3) sustained a sword injury on his right palm while attempting to protect himself; other victims also suffered injuries. An FIR was lodged, followed by investigation and submission of a charge-sheet under Sections 452, 307, 324 and 34 IPC

The prosecution examined 14 witnesses, including the injured witnesses, the investigating officer and medical officers. The defence was one of denial and false implication, and no defence evidence was adduced

The Trial Court convicted the petitioner under Sections 326, 323 and 324 IPC, sentencing him to three years’ rigorous imprisonment and fine under Section 326, and six months’ rigorous imprisonment under Sections 323 and 324, with the sentences to run concurrently

The appellate court affirmed the conviction and sentence. The petitioner thereafter invoked the High Court’s revisional jurisdiction under Sections 397 and 401 Cr.P.C.

1. Whether the injury suffered by P.W.3 constituted “grievous hurt” so as to sustain the petitioner’s conviction under Section 326 IPC, or whether the conviction required alteration to Section 324 IPC?

2. Whether, having regard to the petitioner’s period of incarceration, subsequent conduct and absence of criminal antecedents, the sentence should be limited to the period already undergone and the fine set aside?

The Court applied Sections 397 and 401 Cr.P.C., which confer revisional jurisdiction to examine the correctness, legality or propriety of a finding, sentence or order, particularly where the lower courts’ appreciation of material evidence warrants interference.

It considered Section 320 IPC, which defines “grievous hurt,” together with Sections 324 and 326 IPC: Section 324 concerns voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons or means, whereas Section 326 requires the hurt caused by such means to be grievous.

The distinction between Sections 324 and 326 therefore turns on proof of the aggravated nature of the injury, and not merely on the use of a dangerous weapon.

The High Court examined the evidence of the injured witness P.W.3, the medical evidence of P.W.14 and the injury report marked Ext.7/2

On assessing the nature of the injury to P.W.3’s palm in light of the definition of grievous hurt under Section 320 IPC, the Court found that the evidence did not justify maintaining the conviction under Section 326 IPC.

The injury was sufficiently proved to attract Section 324 IPC, since it was caused by a sword, but the prosecution had not established the degree of injury necessary to constitute grievous hurt

Regarding sentence, the Court noted that the occurrence was more than three decades old, the petitioner had already undergone approximately three months’ incarceration, and the State conceded that he had no other criminal proclivity.

In these circumstances, further imprisonment was considered unnecessary to serve the ends of justice.

The petitioner’s conviction was altered from Section 326 IPC to Section 324 IPC on the basis that the injury to P.W.3 was not proved to be grievous

The sentence was modified to the period of incarceration already undergone, and the fine imposed by the Trial Court was set aside

The Criminal Revision was accordingly disposed of, and all pending interlocutory applications were also disposed of