Holding

Any hurt that endangers life, such as a knife blow to the chest, is grievous hurt, and therefore Section 397 IPC applies.

Summary

The appellants, including Niranjan Singh, were convicted for robbery and for attempting to cause grievous hurt after they assaulted the shopkeeper with a knife, inflicting injuries on his chest just below the nipple and on his arm. The appellants contended that the injuries did not amount to "grievous hurt" under Section 320 of the IPC, and therefore Section 397 (attempt to cause grievous hurt) should not apply. The trial court and the Madhya Pradesh High Court rejected this plea, upholding the convictions. On appeal, the Supreme Court examined the meaning of "grievous hurt" and held that any hurt which endangers life, such as a knife wound to the chest, falls within the ambit of grievous hurt. Consequently, the Court affirmed that the facts satisfied the ingredients of Section 397 IPC. The appeal was dismissed, leaving the convictions and sentences intact.

Issues considered

Whether a knife wound to the chest, located just below the nipple, constitutes "grievous hurt" under Section 320 IPC.
Whether the presence of such injury attracts the provisions of Section 397 IPC (attempt to cause grievous hurt) in a robbery case.

Legislation cited

Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 320, s. 379, s. 392, s. 397

Subjects

robberygrievous hurtattempt to cause grievous hurtIPCcriminal lawinjuryendangers life

Judgment

.J.

) NIRANJAN SINGH A
v.
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUNE 14, 2007

[DR. ARlJIT PASAYAT AND B.P. SINGH, JJ.] B

---; Pena! Code, 1860-s. 397-When attracted-Held : Any hurt which
endangers life is a grievous hurt-Attempt to cause grievous hurt attracts s.
397 depending upon the facts of the case-Accused committed robbery by
giving knife blow on the chest of complainant just below the nipple-
c
Considering place where injury was inflicted s. 379 rightly applied by High
Court.

According to the prosecution case, on the fateful day, appellant-N and
R, demanded money from B. When B refused, R inflicted one injury on his D
right hand with knife and another injury on the left side of chest by knife and
N snatched the money from B. Two persons witnessed the incident. Doctor
conducted medical examination and found two injuries caused by hard and
sharp weapon. Knife was recovered from N. Appellants were convicted under
sections 392 and 397 IPC. Appellants filed appeal. It took a plea that
ingredients under section 397 were not made out as no grievous hurt was E
found. High Court dismissed the appeals. Hence the present appeals.

Dismissing the appeals, the Court

HELD: Any hurt which endangers life is a grievous hurt. The term
"endangers life" is much stronger than the expression "dangerous to life". F
1 Apart from that in the provision "attempt" 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
G
view about the applicability of section 397 IPC.
[Para 9] (1020-H; 1021-A-BJ

~ CRlMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 487 of

1017 H
1018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [20071 7 S.C.R.

A 2001. .(

From the Final Judgment and Order dated 06.04.2000 of the High Court
of Judicature Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur in Criminal Appeal No. 513of1989.

WITH
B
Crl. No. 868 of2002.

Naveen Sharma and B.K. Satiga for the Appellant.
~

Govind Goel and C.D. Singh for the Respondent.
c The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

DR. ARIJIT PASAYA T, J. I. 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
D
Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the IPC) in terms of the order passed by
t
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/-.

E 2. Background facts in a nutshell are as follows:

On 2nd .Tune 1986 the accused persons had entered the shop of Babula!
(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 ofRs.1001/- from the injured Babula! and asked him the
F reason why he had offered only two Ilachis when the three persons had come
)
to the shop the previous day. At the relevant time injured Babula! and his
brother Munnalal (PW 4) were present and they were settling the account.
Babula! was having Rs.400/- in his hands. Ramsahay and Niranjan asked to
hand over Rs.1000/-. On refusal of the complainant Babula!, Ramsahay inflicted
one injury on his right arm with a knife. Another injury was caused on left
G
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. -"{
l
l

H Injured Babula! was referred for meJical examination to Dr. Anand Singhai
NIRANJAN SINGHv. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH [PASAYAT.J.] 1019

(PW 7) who found two injuries. One injury .. Ix l/T was found on the left side A
of chest below the nipple and the other injury li2 x 1/4 was on the left arm.
Both the injuries were caused by hard and sharp weapon. The clothes of
Babula! were seized which carried corresponding sign of insertion of knife.

From the possession of accused Niranjan as per information given by
him, a knife was recovered. Accused Sitaram was put up for identification B
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 C
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 Babula! 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. D
Ramsahay took the plea that Rs. I 050/- were due from Babula! on account of
~ purchase of Char 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 & E
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 F
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 ifthe evidence on record establishes that grievous hurt
was intended. The High Court did not accept the aforesaid plea of accused G
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.
H
1020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 7 S.C.R.

A 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:

(l) The commission of robbery or dacoity as described in Section
B 392 and 395 respectively;
(2) the accused-
(a) used a deadly weapon, or

(b) caused grievous hurt, or
c (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:
D Grievous hurt : The following kinds of hurt only are designated as
grievous:-

First - Emasculation

Secondly - Permanent privation of the sight of either eye.
E
Thirdly - Permanent privation of the hearing of either ear. ·

Fourthly - Privation of any member of joint.

Fifthly - Destruction or permanent imparing of the powers of any
member or join.
F
Sixthly - Permanent disfiguration of the head or face.

Seventhly - Fracture or dislocation of a bone or tooth.

Eighthly - Any hurt which endangers life or which causes the sufferer
to be during the space of twenty days in severe bodily paid, or unable
G
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 endangers
H life is much stronger than the expression dangerous to life. Apart from that
NIRANJAN SINGH~·. ST ATE OF MADHYA PRADESH [PASAYA T. J. )1021

) in the provision attempt to cause grievous hurt attracts its application. The A
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.
B
10. Appeals are dismissed.

-, NJ. Appeal dismissed.