While altering a man's conviction in an assault case and changing it from Section 308 of IPC to Section 323 IPC, the Delhi High Court found that there was no premeditation involved, and the entire incident occurred spontaneously. Furthermore, the High Court held that the ingredients of Section 308 IPC were not attracted since injuries sustained by the complainant were assessed as simple.

The High Court held so while considering a criminal appeal by the State to challenge the judgment passed by the Additional Sessions Judge in the year 2019 which had resulted in the acquittal of the respondent, who was charged with offenses under Section 308 of the IPC.

According to the prosecution's version of events, as per the statement of the complainant (Sushila Devi), she had asked her neighbour, Anita, to set aside the garbage. Anita, in response, picked up the garbage and gestured as if she were going to throw it towards the complainant’s jhuggi. During this exchange, Kamlesh Bahadur (respondent), who was the husband of Anita, struck the complainant on the head with a danda. As a result of this blow, the complainant was taken to Hospital.

A Single Judge Bench of Justice Sudhir Kumar Jain observed that “the Trial Court has convicted the appellant under section 308 IPC on the ground that the appellant initially hit the complainant with a saria and again given a blow with a wooden leg of the cot on vital part of the body i.e. head. There was no premeditation. The entire incident took place on the spur of the moment. Injuries were opined to be simple. The ingredients of section 308 IPC are not attracted and the case falls within the ambit and scope of section 323 IPC”.

Advocate Yudhvir Singh Chauhan appeared for the Petitioner, whereas Advocate Vishesh Wadhwa appeared for the Respondent.

The Bench reviewed the decision in the case of Sunder v. State [2010 (1) JCC 700], wherein it was observed that, to establish an offense under Section 308 IPC, the prosecution needed to prove that the injury had been inflicted with the intention or knowledge that, under the circumstances, if it had resulted in death, the appellant's actions would have amounted to culpable homicide not amounting to murder.

The Bench also referred to the decision of Raju @ Rajpal and others vs. State of Delhi [2014 (3) JCC 1894], where the Court had altered the conviction from Section 308 to 323/34 IPC by holding that the nature of injuries was simple and injuries were not caused with the avowed object or knowledge to cause death.

The Bench found that in the present case, there was no evidence of any prior enmity or dispute between the respondent and the complainant, neither there was any indication of premeditation, and the quarrel had arisen from a trivial issue.

Furthermore, the Bench noted that the injuries sustained by the complainant were characterized as simple and were caused by a blunt object, and that these injuries were not inflicted with the explicit intention or knowledge to cause the complainant's death.

Therefore, the High Court concluded that the prosecution had successfully proven the case against the respondent for the offense punishable under Section 323 of the IPC, and consequently, convicted the respondent for the offense punishable under Section 323 IPC.

Cause Title: State v. Kamlesh Bahadur [Neutral Citation: 2023: DHC: 6678]

Click here to read/ download the Judgement


Delhi High CourtJustice Sudhir Kumar Jain

Pankaj Bajpai