AIR 2005 SUPREME COURT 710 ::2005 AIR SCW 368 ::(2005) 2 MadLW(Cri) 487 ::2005 ChandLR(Civ&Cri) 276 ::(2005) 1 CurCriR 155 ::(2005) 1 AllCriR 505 ::2005 CriLR(SC&MP) 554 ::2005 (3) SCC 260 ::(2005) 1 RecCriR 64 ::2005 (1) RecCriR 694 ::(2005) 1 RecCivR 15 ::(2005) 1 Scale 293 ::2005 CriLR(SC MAH GUJ) 554 ::(2005) 1 ALD(CRL) 610 ::(2005) 1 AllCriLR 872 ::2005 (1) CalCriLR 437 ::(2005) 2 BLJ 307 ::2005 (2) BLJ 93 ::(2005) 1 ChandCriC 113 ::2005 (2) EastCriC 25 ::2005 (1) Ker LT 719 ::(2005) 1 JCR 213 (SC) ::(2005) 1 KHCACJ 387 (SC) ::2005 (1) KHCACJ 387 ::2006 (33) OCR 546 ::(2005) 2 Pat LJR 84 ::2005 (2) PatLJR 74 ::2005 (1) RajCriC 201 ::(2005) 1 SCJ 354 ::(2005) 3 LandLR 323 ::2005 (1) Crimes 181 ::2005 (1) Supreme 215 ::2005 (2) SLT 194 ::(2005) 26 AllIndCas 65 (SC) ::2005 (51) AllCriC 445 ::(2005) 2 JT 365 (SC) ::2005 (2) JT 365

Supreme Court Of India

(From : Kerala)*

Hon'ble Judge(s): Arijit Pasayat, S. H. Kapadia , JJ

(A) Penal Code (45 of 1860) , S.326, S.325— Grievous hurt - Caused voluntarily - Weapon of assault was stone - Whether can be said to be dangerous one - Injury caused was grievous as per evidence of Doctor - However, considering size of stone used for assault, it cannot be said that dangerous weapon was used - Conviction altered to S. 325, IPC from S. 326, IPC. Whether a particular article can per se cause any serious wound or grievous hurt or injury has to be determined factually. The evidence of Doctor clearly shows that the hurt or the injury that was caused was covered under the expression "grievous hurt" as defined under S. 320, IPC. The inevitable conclusion is that a grievous hurt was caused. It is not that in every case a stone would constitute a dangerous weapon. It would depend upon the facts of the case. The facts involved in a particular case, depending upon various factors like size, sharpness, would throw light on the question whether the weapon was a dangerous or deadly weapon or not. That would determine whether in the case S. 325 or S. 326 would be applicable. In the instant case considering the size of the stone which was used, as revealed by material on record, it cannot be said that a dangerous weapon was used. Therefore, the conviction is altered to S. 325, IPC.(Para 16 17) ....