Section 326 IPC conviction requires grievous hurt under Section 320, not merely medical certification.

On 2 August 2015, allegedly due to prior enmity concerning coconut trees protruding onto the petitioner’s land, Raja @ Rasu entered the house of P.W.1, stabbed him in the stomach with a knife, and criminally intimidated him.

The FIR was registered on 3 August 2015, initially for offences under Sections 448, 294(b), 324 and 506(ii) IPC; after investigation, a final report was filed for Sections 452, 294(b), 326 and 506(ii) IPC.

The trial Court convicted the petitioner under Sections 452, 326 and 506(ii) IPC and sentenced him to three years’ simple imprisonment for each offence, with the sentences to run concurrently. The appellate Court affirmed the conviction and sentence.

In revision, the petitioner challenged the reliability of the eyewitnesses, the delay in registration of the FIR, the non-seizure of bloodstained clothes, the non-examination of independent witnesses, and the medical classification of the injury.

He alternatively sought reduction of sentence on account of the passage of time and offered to pay compensation.

Whether the concurrent findings that the petitioner criminally trespassed into P.W.1’s house with preparation to cause hurt and committed criminal intimidation were supported by reliable evidence despite the alleged FIR delay and non-examination of independent witnesses.

Whether the injury suffered by P.W.1 constituted “grievous hurt” within the meaning of Section 320 IPC so as to sustain the petitioner’s conviction under Section 326 IPC.

Whether the sentence required modification in view of the age of the petitioner, the nature of the injury, and the lapse of approximately ten years since the occurrence.

The Court applied Section 452 IPC, which is attracted where house-trespass is committed after preparation for causing hurt; Section 506(ii) IPC concerning aggravated criminal intimidation; and Section 326 IPC, which requires voluntarily causing grievous hurt by a dangerous weapon or means.

Grievous hurt must fall within one of the clauses of Section 320 IPC, and a doctor’s opinion that an injury is “grievous” is advisory rather than conclusive; the Court must independently classify the injury according to the statutory categories.

The Court relied on Mariappan v. State, Crl.R.C. No.176 of 2011, for the principle that medical evidence assists, but does not determine, the legal classification of hurt.

It further applied the settled principle that the testimony of an injured eyewitness ordinarily carries substantial evidentiary value and cannot be rejected merely because independent witnesses were not examined, provided the testimony remains credible.

Section 428 Cr.P.C. was applied to direct set-off of the period already undergone.

The Court found that the discrepancy regarding the date of recording the statement did not undermine the prosecution case because P.W.6 clarified that information was received on 3 August 2015.

The defence suggestion that P.W.1 accidentally injured himself by falling on the knife was considered improbable in light of the stab puncture measuring 1.5 cm, through which a finger could enter, and the medical evidence.

P.W.1’s testimony as the injured eyewitness, supported by P.W.2, and P.W.3’s evidence that he saw the petitioner leaving the house with a knife, was not materially discredited in cross-examination; consequently, the absence of independent witnesses was not fatal.

These facts established trespass with preparation to cause hurt under Section 452 IPC and supported the charge under Section 506(ii) IPC.

However, although the doctor described the injury as grievous and P.W.1 was hospitalised for seven days, the Court found that the injury did not fall within any of the statutory clauses of Section 320 IPC.

The conviction under Section 326 IPC was therefore unsustainable, but the proved stabbing with a knife justified conviction under Section 324 IPC.

Given the lapse of time, the petitioner’s age, and the nature of the injury, the Court considered a reduced custodial sentence appropriate.

The convictions under Sections 452 and 506(ii) IPC were sustained, while the conviction under Section 326 IPC was altered to one under Section 324 IPC because the injury was not legally “grievous” under Section 320 IPC.

The sentence for all offences was reduced to two months’ simple imprisonment, to run concurrently.

The petitioner was directed to pay Rs.1,00,000 as compensation to P.W.1 in relation to the Section 324 IPC offence, with any fine already paid to be adjusted towards that amount; in default of payment, he would undergo three months’ simple imprisonment.

The period already undergone was directed to be set off under Section 428 Cr.P.C.