Kerala High Court Acquits Accused, Sets Aside Conviction for Voluntarily Causing Hurt Under Section 323 IPC Due to Lack of Evidence of Bodily Pain or Injury in Alleged Assault

Court’s Decision

The Kerala High Court allowed the revision petition, setting aside the conviction under Section 323 IPC, as the prosecution failed to prove that the alleged act of the accused caused bodily pain, disease, or infirmity to the complainant. The court acquitted the revision petitioner under Section 386(b)(i) Cr.P.C., thereby canceling his bail bond.

Facts

The accused, a driver in the CBCID Office, allegedly assaulted a Grade Sub Inspector under the belief that the officer was responsible for his transfer to another unit. The incident occurred on May 31, 2012, when the accused reportedly slapped the complainant, causing his spectacles to fall.

Issues

1. Can an accused charged under Section 332 IPC be convicted under Section 323 IPC without a specific charge under the latter?
2. Is proof of bodily pain, disease, or infirmity required to establish an offence under Section 323 IPC?
3. Should the appellate court’s confirmation of the trial court’s conviction be interfered with?

Petitioner’s Arguments

The petitioner argued that in the absence of a specific charge under Section 323 IPC, a conviction for that offence was not permissible. Additionally, the petitioner contended that the alleged slap did not result in bodily pain, disease, or infirmity, thereby failing to meet the criteria of “hurt” under Section 319 IPC.

Respondent’s Arguments

The Public Prosecutor maintained that the conviction under Section 323 IPC was justified based on the evidence presented.

Analysis of the Law

Under Section 222 Cr.P.C., a person charged with a major offence can be convicted of a minor offence, even if not specifically charged, provided the elements are common between the offences. The court examined precedents, including S.M. Multtani v. State of Karnataka, which clarified that a “minor offence” can result in conviction if its primary elements align with those of the major offence.

Precedent Analysis

The court referenced Reji v. State of Kerala, where it was established that to secure a conviction under Section 323 IPC, the prosecution must demonstrate that the accused’s actions resulted in bodily pain, disease, or infirmity.

Court’s Reasoning

The court noted that while the accused was initially charged under Section 332 IPC, the evidence only supported a conviction under Section 323 IPC. However, no evidence showed that the slap inflicted bodily pain or infirmity, as required by Sections 319 and 323 IPC. The testimony of the complainant and the absence of medical findings on pain or injury led the court to conclude that the essential elements of “hurt” were not substantiated.

Conclusion

The court set aside the conviction, acquitting the petitioner due to insufficient evidence of bodily harm.

Implications

This judgment reinforces the necessity of proving bodily pain, disease, or infirmity to establish a charge of voluntarily causing hurt under Section 323 IPC. It also underscores that a conviction under a minor offence is permissible only when the primary elements of the alleged major offence are common with those of the minor offence.

Also Read – “Supreme Court Allows Fresh Arbitration Application: Evaluates Time-Barred Claims, Good Faith Pursuit of IBC Proceedings, and Flexibility in Procedural Time Bars Under Section 11(6) for Swift Dispute Resolution”