For Section 325 IPC, courts may enhance fine and compensation without increasing custodial sentence.

On 10 October 2017, Govindram Kenwat was allegedly assaulted by the respondent with a wooden club at a vegetable garden.

He sustained a puncture wound and fracture of the left tibia and fibula and remained hospitalised from 10 October to 14 November 2017.

The medical and radiological evidence confirmed the grievous fracture injury, and the doctor opined that it could have been caused by the seized lathi.

The respondent was initially charged under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (“IPC”).

After trial, the Sessions Court convicted him under Section 325 IPC instead and sentenced him to the period already undergone—approximately 152 days—with a fine of ₹100.

The State filed the present appeal under Section 377 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, seeking enhancement of sentence.

Whether the respondent’s conviction under Section 325 IPC, instead of Section 307 IPC, was legally sustainable on the evidence on record?

Whether the sentence of imprisonment already undergone and a fine of ₹100 for the grievous fracture injury was inadequate and required enhancement?

Whether compensation should be awarded to the injured under Section 395 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (“BNSS”)?

The Court applied Section 377 CrPC, which permits the State to appeal against an allegedly inadequate sentence.

Section 325 IPC prescribes punishment for voluntarily causing grievous hurt but does not prescribe a minimum sentence.

The distinction between Sections 307 and 325 IPC requires assessment of the accused’s intention or knowledge, the weapon used, the body part targeted, and the surrounding circumstances; grievous injury alone does not automatically establish an attempt to murder.

The Court further applied Section 395 BNSS, 2023, concerning payment of compensation to an injured victim from the fine imposed by the Court.

The Court relied principally on the testimony of the injured witness and the medical evidence.

Govindram stated that the respondent assaulted him on the left leg after an altercation.

He clarified that the head injury resulted when he accidentally struck his head against a wooden log fixed near the roof, and was not caused by the respondent.

The medical and radiological evidence established a fracture of the tibia and fibula, thereby proving grievous hurt, but the injury attributable to the respondent was on the leg and was caused with a wooden club.

In these circumstances, the Court held that the evidence did not establish the requisite intention or knowledge for an offence under Section 307 IPC and affirmed the conviction under Section 325 IPC.

However, considering the seriousness of the fracture and the inadequacy of the ₹100 fine, the Court found that the sentence required modification.

Since Section 325 IPC contains no minimum sentence and the respondent had already undergone approximately 152 days’ imprisonment, the Court declined to increase the custodial sentence but enhanced the fine and directed that it be paid as compensation to the injured witness.

The Court affirmed the respondent’s conviction under Section 325 IPC and declined to restore or impose conviction under Section 307 IPC.

The substantive sentence of imprisonment already undergone was maintained, but the fine was enhanced from ₹100 to ₹25,000, payable within three months.

In default, the respondent was directed to undergo two months’ rigorous imprisonment.

The deposited fine was ordered to be paid to injured Govindram as compensation under Section 395 BNSS, 2023.