http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 3  

CASE NO.: Appeal (crl.)  487 of 2001

PETITIONER: Niranjan Singh

RESPONDENT: State of Madhya Pradesh

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 14/06/2007

BENCH: Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT & B.P. SINGH

JUDGMENT: J U D G M E N T  With

CRIMINAL APPEAL  No. 868 of 2002

Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.

1.      Both these appeals are directed against the common  judgment of a learned Single Judge of the Madhya Pradesh  High Court, Jabalpur Bench, dismissing the appeal filed by  the appellants, challenging their conviction for offences  punishable under Sections 392 and 397 of the Indian Penal  Code, 1860 (in short the \021IPC\022) in terms of the order passed by  the learned Third Additional Sessions Judge, Sagar.  On each  count the appellants were directed to undergo 7 years rigorous  imprisonment with fine of Rs.500/-.

2.      Background facts in a nutshell are as follows:            On 2nd June 1986 the accused persons had entered the  shop of Babulal (PW-1) while he was in the process of closing.  One shutter was already put and one shutter was still to be  put. They entered the shop at about 9.15 p.m. and asked for a  sum of Rs.1001/- from the injured Babulal and asked him the  reason why he had offered only two \021Ilachis\022 when the three  persons had come to the shop the previous day. At the  relevant time injured Babulal and his brother Munnalal (PW 4)  were present   and they were settling the account. Babulal was  having Rs.400/- in his hands.  Ramsahay and Niranjan asked  to hand over Rs.1000/-. On refusal of the complainant  Babulal, Ramsahay inflicted one injury on his right arm with a  knife.  Another injury was caused on left side of chest by knife.  Rs.400/- which the complainant had in his hands were  snatched by Niranjan Singh. It is alleged that one more boy  was accompanying the accused persons whose name was not  known. The incident was witnessed by Santosh Kumar (PW3)  and Jinendra Kumar.                Injured Babulal was referred for medical examination to  Dr. Anand Singhai (PW 7) who found two injuries. One injury  1\024 x =\022\024 was found on the left side of chest below the nipple  and the other injury =\024 x <\024   was on the left arm. Both the  injuries were caused by hard and sharp weapon. The clothes  of Babulal were seized which carried corresponding sign of  insertion of knife.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 3  

     From the possession of accused Niranjan as per  information given by him, a knife was recovered. Accused  Sitaram was put up for identification parade by Mulle Singh  (PW2) who was Sarpanch of the village. The identification  parade was allegedly held near the paper mill. The money  which was allegedly looted could not be recovered from the  accused.            The accused abjured the guilt. Accused Sitaram  contended that he was falsely implicated in the case. Accused  Niranjan took the defence that he was standing in front of the  shop of Munnalal and accused Ramsahay was demanding  money from Babulal which was due from him. On that  altercation took place between Munnalal and Ramsahay and  there was a scuffle. The accused intervened and separated the  two. As the accused (Niranjan) sided with Ramasahay, his  name was also mentioned in the array of accused. Ramsahay  took the plea that Rs.1050/- were due from Babulal on  account of purchase of \021Char\022 which was payable to his uncle  and when money was demanded an altercation took place. No  incident of robbery took place. Knife was not recovered from  him.

3.      Placing reliance on the evidence of eye witnesses i.e. PWs  1, 4, 5 & 6 more particularly that of the injured witnesses  Babu Lal (PW-1) and Munna Lal (PW-4), the trial Court found  the accused persons guilty. He also placed reliance on the  evidence of PW 3 - Santosh who had seen the incident from a  distance and reaching the spot had seen the accused persons  running away.   

4.      In appeal though several points were urged, the primary  stand was that ingredients under Section 397 IPC were not  made out as no grievous hurt was found.  The prosecution  took the stand that for attracting Section 397 IPC it is not  necessary that grievous hurt should be found. Ingredients of  the provision are satisfied if the evidence on record establishes  that grievous hurt was intended.  The High Court did not  accept the aforesaid plea of accused and dismissed the appeal.

5.       Stand taken before the High Court was reiterated in  these appeals.  It was submitted that for attracting Section  397 IPC grievous hurt must have resulted from the assault.

6.      Learned counsel for the State on the other hand  supported the judgments of the trial court and the High Court.

7.      The ingredients of the offence are as under: (1)     The commission of robbery or dacoity as  described in Section 392 and 395  respectively; (2)     the accused- (a)     used a deadly weapon, or (b)     caused grievous hurt, or (c)     attempted to cause death or  grievous hurt; (3)     he did so at the time of committing the  robbery or dacoity.

8.      Grievous hurt is defined in Section 320 IPC.  This Section  reads as follows:

\023Grievous hurt : The following kinds of hurt only are  designated as \023grievous\024:-

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 3  

First \026 Emasculation Secondly \026 Permanent privation of the sight of either  eye. Thirdly \026 Permanent privation of the hearing of  either ear. Fourthly \026Privation of any member of joint. Fifthly \026 Destruction or permanent imparing of the  powers of any member or join. Sixthly \026 Permanent disfiguration of the head or  face. Seventhly \026 Fracture or dislocation of a bone or  tooth. Eighthly \026 Any hurt which endangers life or which  causes the sufferer to be during the space of twenty  days in severe bodily paid, or unable to follow his  ordinary pursuits.

9.      The facts of the instant case show that Section 397 IPC  was rightly applied.  Any hurt which endangers life is a  grievous hurt.  It would be seen that one of the injuries was  caused just below the nipple. The term \023endangers life\024 is  much stronger than the expression \023dangerous to life\024. Apart  from that in the provision \023attempt\024 to cause grievous hurt  attracts its application. The question whether the accused  attempted to cause death or grievous hurt would depend upon  the factual scenario. In the instant case knife blow was given  on the chest just below the nipple. Considering the place  where injury was inflicted i.e. on the chest the High Court was  right in its view about the applicability of Section 397 IPC.

10.     Appeals are dismissed.