Section 326 IPC conviction requires proof that grievous hurt was caused by a dangerous weapon.

On 26 January 2022, Nantu Das allegedly sustained a bleeding injury to his left wrist during an assault arising from a dispute over canal water.

The prosecution alleged that the appellants—Gopal Das, Ranjit Das and Shefal Das—assaulted Nantu with a spade.

An FIR was registered under Sections 341, 326, 307 and 34 IPC, followed by investigation and submission of a charge-sheet.

The Sessions Court framed charges under the same provisions and, after examining nine prosecution witnesses, convicted the appellants under Section 326/34 IPC and sentenced each to five years’ rigorous imprisonment and a fine of ₹5,000.

The appellants challenged the conviction, contending, inter alia, that the alleged weapon was neither recovered nor proved and that the injuries did not establish the offence under Section 326 IPC.

Whether the prosecution proved the ingredients of Sections 307 and 341 IPC beyond reasonable doubt.

Whether the evidence established that the appellants voluntarily caused grievous hurt by means of a dangerous weapon so as to attract Section 326 read with Section 34 IPC.

Whether the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial court required appellate interference.

The Court applied Section 307 IPC, requiring proof of the requisite intention or knowledge that the act was likely to cause death, and Section 341 IPC concerning wrongful restraint.

Section 326 IPC applies where grievous hurt is voluntarily caused by specified dangerous weapons or means, including an instrument used as a weapon of offence that is likely to cause death.

The prosecution bears the burden of proving every ingredient of the charged offence beyond reasonable doubt.

Proof that the victim suffered grievous injury, without reliable proof that such injury was caused by the particular dangerous weapon contemplated by Section 326 IPC, is insufficient to sustain conviction under that aggravated provision.

The Court upheld the trial court’s finding that Sections 307 and 341 IPC were not established, noting the absence of medical evidence that the injuries were sufficient to cause death and the absence of proof of the intention or knowledge required for an offence under Section 307 IPC.

Although the evidence established that Nantu suffered grievous injuries and the injured witness referred to the use of a spade, the prosecution did not satisfactorily prove recovery of the spade, produce the alleged weapon at trial, or scientifically connect any weapon with the injuries.

Medical evidence established the nature of the injuries but did not prove that they were caused by a dangerous weapon within the meaning of Section 326 IPC.

Consequently, the prosecution failed to establish the aggravated offence beyond reasonable doubt.

The Court therefore found the conviction under Section 326/34 IPC unsustainable.

The appeal was allowed; the conviction and sentence dated 10 and 11 April 2025, respectively, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Khowai, in S.T. (Type-2) 14 of 2022 were set aside, and all three appellants were acquitted.

Pending applications, if any, were disposed of, and the lower-court records were directed to be sent back.