'Stone' Would Come Within Purview Of Weapon Likely To Cause Death Depending On Nature, Size Or Sharpness And Manner Of Use: Kerala High Court
The Kerala High Court ruled that stone would also come within the purview of weapon of offence likely to cause death to attract an offence under Section 324 of the IPC depending upon its nature, size, sharpness and the manner in which it was used for causing injury.Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code provides for punishment for voluntarily causing hurt by any instrument for shooting, stabbing...
The Kerala High Court ruled that stone would also come within the purview of weapon of offence likely to cause death to attract an offence under Section 324 of the IPC depending upon its nature, size, sharpness and the manner in which it was used for causing injury.
Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code provides for punishment for voluntarily causing hurt by any instrument for shooting, stabbing or cutting, or any instrument used as a weapon of offence is likely to cause death.
Justice A. Badharudeen held that
“Thus, it has to be held that a stone would also come within the purview of a weapon of the offence likely to cause death, depending upon the nature of the stone, the size and sharpness of the said stone and the manner in which the stone was used in the process of assault for inflicting injury. These aspects can be considered by the trial court during trial of the case visualizing those aspects.”
The petitioner is the accused who has approached the Court to quash the FIR and Final Report against him alleging commission of offences punishable under Sections 324 (voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapon or means) , 294(b) (obscene acts and songs) and 506(i) (punishment for criminal intimidation) of the IPC.
The prosecution allegation is that the petitioner threw a stone at the de facto complainant causing abrasion on her hand and threatened to kill her out of animosity.
The petitioner submitted that a rift between him and the de facto complainant who are neighbours resulted in filing of both a case and a counter case. The petitioner stated that Court had quashed the final report against the de facto complainant regarding charges under Sections 324, 294(b) and 506(i) of the IPC. It was stated that the Court had stated that the de facto complainant should only be tried for the offence under Section 323 (punishment for voluntarily causing hurt) of the IPC.
The petitioner thus submitted that the final report and FIR against him alleging the commission of offences punishable under Sections 324, 294(b) and 506(i) of the IPC must also be quashed.
The Court noted Section 118 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 is analogous to Section 324 of the IPC.
Court said, “Reading Section 324 of IPC as well as under Section 118(1) of the BNS, it is clear that, voluntarily causing hurt by means of any instrument which used as a weapon of offence is likely to cause death, would attract offence under Section 324 of IPC.”
The Court referred to Mathai v State of Kerala (2005), where it was held that the term dangerous weapon would depend upon the facts of each case and cannot be generalized. It referred to Dasan v State of Kerala (2014) to state that various factors like size, sharpness would determine whether the weapon was a dangerous or deadly weapon or not.
In the facts of the case, the Court held that the nature, size, sharpness and how it was used to cause injury would determine is a particular stone could be weapon of offence likely to cause death.
The Court thus held that it cannot merely hold that an offence under Section 342 of IPC is not attracted without considering evidence. It stated that these are matters to be decided by the Court during trial.
“But, on evidence, depending on the nature of the stone, the trial court can decide whether the particular stone used in a particular case to be considered as a weapon of offence likely to cause death or not. Here, there is allegation that the injury was caused by the accused using of a stone. Therefore, it cannot be held prima facie that no offence punishable under Section 324 of IPC would attract in the facts of this case.”
As such, the Court refused to quash the FIR and the final report against the petitioner and noted that prima facie offences are being made out.
Counsel for Petitioners: Advocates C A Chacko, C M Charisma
Counsel for Respondents: Advocate L Rajesh Narayan, Senior Public Prosecutor Renjith George
Case Number: CRL.MC NO. 5158 OF 2020
Case Title: Vinil v State of Kerala
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 656