The Delhi High Court has modified a man's conviction in an assault case by shifting it from Section 308 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) to Section 323 IPC. This alteration was made because the court determined that there was no premeditation involved, and the entire incident occurred spontaneously. Furthermore, the court ruled that the criteria for Section 308 IPC were not met since the injuries sustained by the complainant were assessed as simple.

The High Court made this determination while reviewing a criminal appeal filed by the State, which aimed to contest the judgment issued by the Additional Sessions Judge in 2019. The original judgment had led to the acquittal of the accused, who was facing charges under Section 308 of the IPC.

Based on the prosecution's account of the incident, as conveyed through the statement of the complainant, Sushila Devi, the sequence of events unfolded as follows: Sushila Devi had requested her neighbor, Anita, to dispose of the garbage. In response, Anita picked up the garbage and made a gesture as if she intended to throw it in the direction of Sushila Devi's dwelling (jhuggi). During this interaction, Kamlesh Bahadur, who was Anita's husband and the respondent in the case, struck Sushila Devi on the head with a danda (a stick or rod). This resulted in Sushila Devi being injured and subsequently taken to the hospital for treatment.

In the case, a Single Judge Bench, presided over by Justice Sudhir Kumar Jain, made the following observation: "The Trial Court convicted the appellant under Section 308 IPC based on the fact that the appellant initially struck the complainant with a saria and subsequently delivered a blow with a wooden leg of the cot to a vital part of the body, i.e., the head. It was determined that there was no premeditation involved in this incident, and the entire event occurred spontaneously. Moreover, the injuries sustained by the complainant were categorized as simple. Consequently, the essential elements of Section 308 IPC were not applicable, and the case falls within the purview of Section 323 IPC."

The Bench conducted a review of the decision in the case of Sunder v. State [2010 (1) JCC 700], where it was noted that in order to establish an offense under Section 308 IPC, the prosecution was required to demonstrate that the injury had been inflicted with the intention or knowledge that, given the circumstances, if it had led to death, the actions of the accused would have constituted culpable homicide not amounting to murder. This observation from the Sunder case seems to have influenced the Bench's interpretation of the present case and its decision to modify the conviction.

The Bench also made reference to the decision in the case of Raju @ Rajpal and others vs. State of Delhi [2014 (3) JCC 1894], where the Court had changed the conviction from Section 308 to Section 323/34 IPC. In that case, the Court had determined that the injuries sustained by the victim were simple and that the injuries were not inflicted with the deliberate intention or knowledge to cause death. This precedent appears to have influenced the Bench's decision to alter the conviction in the present case as well.

The Bench concluded that in the current case, there was no evidence of any prior enmity or dispute between the respondent and the complainant. Additionally, there was no indication of premeditation, and the dispute had arisen from a minor and inconsequential issue. These factors likely contributed to the Bench's decision to modify the conviction based on the absence of intent or knowledge to cause a more serious harm as required under Section 308 IPC.

Additionally, the Bench observed that the injuries sustained by the complainant were categorized as simple and were the result of blunt force from an object. Importantly, these injuries were not inflicted with the specific intention or knowledge to cause the complainant's death. This assessment of the injuries played a crucial role in the Bench's decision to modify the conviction, as it was a key factor in determining the appropriate section of the Indian Penal Code under which the respondent should be convicted.

As a result, the High Court reached the conclusion that the prosecution had effectively established a case against the respondent for the offense punishable under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). Consequently, the High Court convicted the respondent under Section 323 IPC for the offense in question.

Case: State v. Kamlesh Bahadur, CRL.L.P. 515/2019.