Wooden Stick Can Be Considered As 'Weapon' Under Section 326 IPC: Kerala High Court

Justice Ziyad Rahman A.A. held that the expression “any instrument which is used as a weapon” in the provision gives a broader scope to Section 326. Here, the Court noted that ‘wooden stick’ may not be considered as a weapon in its original form, but it can be considered as an instrument of weapon if it was used to cause grievous hurt. The Court held thus:

“The expression “any instrument which is used as a weapon”, gives a significantly broader scope to the said provision, capable of taking within it, any instrument which does not have the characteristics of a weapon under normal circumstances, provided the same was used as a weapon to cause grievous hut. Thus, the emphasis is on any “instrument which used as a weapon” and it is not necessary that the instrument as such should be a weapon in its original form.”

The Court was hearing application for anticipatory bail of petitioner, who allegedly trespassed into the house of complainant and attacked him with a wooden stick and caused grievous hurt.

The Petitioner was alleged to have committed offences under Section Sections 294(b) (obscene acts and songs), 447 (punishment for criminal trespass), 324 (voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous means or weapons) and 326 (voluntarily causing grievous hurt by dangerous means or weapons) of the IPC. He has approached the Court for an anticipatory bail.

The counsel for the petitioner submitted that offence under Section 326 was not attracted as wooden stick cannot be treated as a weapon. It was argued that in the absence of any weapon, the offence that would be attracted is Section 325 of the IPC, which is bailable.

The Court opined that it cannot accept such contention of the petitioner as Section 326 of the IPC does not provide description of weapon and any instrument used for causing grievous hurt can be considered to be a weapon.

The court thus rejected anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

Case Title: Vineesh v State of Kerala

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 386

Case number: Bail Appl. 4063/2023

Counsel for the petitioner: Advocate M R Sasith

Counsel for the respondents: Senior Public Prosecutor Advocate Sreeja V