Today, the bench headed by Justice A. Badharudeen of the Kerala High Court held that a stone can be classified as a weapon of offense that could potentially cause death under Section 324 of the IPC. This classification depends on factors such as the stone's nature, size, sharpness, and the manner in which it is employed to inflict injury.

Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code prescribes penalties for voluntarily causing hurt using any instrument designed for shooting, stabbing, or cutting, or any instrument employed as a weapon of offense that is likely to result in death.

“Thus, it has to be held that a stone would also come within the purview of a weapon of the offence likely to cause death, depending upon the nature of the stone, the size and sharpness of the said stone and the manner in which the stone was used in the process of assault for inflicting injury. These aspects can be considered by the trial court during trial of the case visualizing those aspects.”

The petitioner, approaches the Court seeking to quash both the FIR and the Final Report against him. He is facing allegations of committing offenses punishable under Sections 324 (voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapon or means), 294(b) (obscene acts and songs), and 506(i) (punishment for criminal intimidation) of the IPC.

The prosecution allegation is that the petitioner threw a stone at the de facto complainant causing abrasion on her hand and threatened to kill her out of animosity.

The petitioner argued that a conflict between him and the de facto complainant, who are neighbors, led to the filing of both a case and a counter case. He pointed out that the Court had quashed the final report against the de facto complainant concerning the charges under Sections 324, 294(b), and 506(i) of the IPC. The Court indicated that the de facto complainant should only be tried for the offense under Section 323 (punishment for voluntarily causing hurt) of the IPC.

The petitioner, therefore, contended that the final report and FIR against him, which allege the commission of offenses punishable under Sections 324, 294(b), and 506(i) of the IPC, should also be quashed.

After an arguements, the Court observed that Section 118 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, is analogous to Section 324 of the IPC.

“Reading Section 324 of IPC as well as under Section 118(1) of the BNS, it is clear that, voluntarily causing hurt by means of any instrument which used as a weapon of offence is likely to cause death, would attract offence under Section 324 of IPC.”

The Court also refered the case of Mathai v. State of Kerala (2005), which established that the classification of a "dangerous weapon" depends on the specific facts of each case and cannot be generalized. Additionally, the Court referenced Dasan v. State of Kerala (2014), noting that various factors, such as size and sharpness, play a crucial role in determining whether a weapon qualifies as dangerous or deadly.