Page 1

NON-REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 808 OF 2017

[@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRL.) 9390 OF 2015 ] SHAJI                                         Appellant (s)

                               VERSUS STATE OF KERALA & ANR.                        Respondent(s)

J U D G M E N T

KURIAN, J. 1. Leave granted. 2 On 30.10.2015, this Court passed the following order :-

“The  application  for  impleadment  is allowed.

Learned  senior  counsel  for  the petitioner contends, that the petitioner has been convicted under Section 326 of the  Indian Penal  Code.  It  is  the contention of the learned senior counsel for  the petitioner, that for conviction under Section 326 of the Indian  Penal Code, it   is   imperative   for   the prosecution   to   establish   firstly, that  the  accused  is  guilty  of voluntarily  having  caused   grievous hurt,   and   secondly,   the   grievous hurt  should  have  been  caused  “...by means  of any  instrument for  shooting, stabbing or cutting, or any instrument which, used as a weapon of offence, is likely  to  cause  death...”  It  is  the

Page 2

contention of the learned senior counsel for the petitioner, that the prosecution has  not   been  able  to  establish  the second ingredient of the offence under Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code. Delay condoned. Issue notice to the respondent-State of Kerala, returnable after two weeks. Liberty is granted to the learned counsel for the petitioner  to  effect service on the standing counsel for the State of  Kerala  nominated  for  this Court. Mr. Zulfiker Ali P.S., learned counsel, enters appearance on behalf of the newly added respondent and accepts notice.”   

3. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and the State.  We have also heard the de-facto  complainant,  who  is  the  additional respondent.  Having regard to the peculiar facts of this case and the evidence available on record and in particular,  the  nature  of  injuries  and  the  weapon used for inflicting such injuries, we are of the view that this is a case where the conviction should have been  only  under  Section  325  IPC.   Therefore,  the conviction is altered to one under Section 325 IPC. 4. The  appellant  has  filed  an  application  for compounding the offence.  The application is allowed. Since  the  conviction  has  been  compounded,  the sentence is limited to the period already undergone.

Page 3

5. With the above observations and directions, the appeal is disposed of.     

.......................J.               [ KURIAN JOSEPH ]  

.......................J.               [ R. BANUMATHI ]  

New Delhi; April 28, 2017.