Supreme Court High Court Judgment updates| taxation GST laws| NRI help

Appeal for conviction under section 307 IPC instead of 325 IPC dismissed, finding no reason and respondents have already undergone imprisonment

January 28, 2018



Appeal to change conviction under 325 ipc to 307 dismissed

A Bench of Supreme Court Judges, Justice R.K. Agrawal and Justice Abhay Manohar Sapre dismissed the appeal filed in Subhash Chander Bansal v. Gian Chand and Ors, Criminal Appeal No. 1676 of 2009.


The facts of the case are five accused persons were prosecuted under Sections 307/325/148/149 of the Indian Penal Code,1908 for causing injuries to two persons namely, Om Prakash and Ravinder Kumar, with Hockey at around 7.15 p.m. on 29.07.1988. The prosecution was initiated against the respondents on the basis of FIR No. 128 dated 03.08.1988 lodged by the appellant herein, who is the son of Om Prakash (since dead). The Trial Court, by order dated 14.11.1998 acquitted all the five accused persons.

The State, being aggrieved by the order of acquitting the respondents, filed criminal appeal being Criminal Appeal No.494-DB of 1999 before the High Court of Punjab & Haryana whereas the complainant filed a Criminal Revision No. 174 of 1999 against the order of the acquittal.

The High Court, by the impugned judgment, allowed the State's appeal in part and convicted the four accused persons namely, Gian Chand, Krishan Kumar, Lachhman Dass and Bhagwan Dass (respondent Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 5) under Section 325 read with Section 34 IPC and upheld the acquittal of one accused person, namely, Suresh Kumar - respondent No. 4 by giving him benefit of doubt.

The complainant, being aggrieved by the judgment of the High Court, has filed this appeal by way of special leave in this Court. The State has not filed any appeal The court said that the short question that arises for consideration in this appeal is whether the High Court having convicted the four accused persons under Section 325 read with Section 34 IPC was justified in imposing the sentence that was already undergone by them and by imposing a fine of Rs.50,000/- to be paid equally by the four convicted accused persons.



The Supreme court opined that the High Court was right and hence the impugned judgment does not call for any interference.In the first place, the High Court convicted four accused persons under Section 325 read with section 34 IPC and not under Section 307 IPC. In other words, in the opinion of the High Court, no case was made out under Section 307 IPC, but it was essentially a case of a "grievous hurt" falling under Section 325 IPC.

The court dismissed the appeal.




Read the Judgment of Supreme Court of India in Subhash Chander Bansal v. Gian Chand & Ors dated 25.1.2018



About Us | Privacy Policy | Disclaimer | Sitemap