Sets aside petitioner’s conviction under Section 326 RPC; convicts him under Section 325 RPC, which carries lesser penalty
Srinagar: The High Court of J&K and Ladakh has ruled that stones used for pelting cannot by any stretch of reasoning be termed as a dangerous weapon to invoke stern punishment for the stone-pelter.
The significant ruling was delivered in the case of one Jaswant Singh of Deol, Billawar in Jammu. Singh was convicted under section 326 for pelting stones at his neighbour in a dispute of land trespass.
A stone by Singh had hit the eye of his contender which resulted in loss of sight to the latter. The Chief Judicial Magistrate of the area in 2009 convicted the accused under section 326 of RPC and awarded him five years imprisonment and fine of Rs 5000.
The accused filed an appeal wherein the bench of Justice Sanjeev Kumar altered his conviction from section 326 to section 325 of the RPC.
Justice Kumar held “the size of stones used for pelting cannot, by any stretch of reasoning, be termed as a ‘dangerous weapon’ or ‘an instrument’ used for shooting, stabbing or cutting etc., nor can it be termed as ‘any corrosive or ‘any explosive substance’ or a substance which is deleterious to the human body to inhale, to swallow, or to receive into the blood, etc.”
Singh through his lawyer, Vishal Sharma, argued that section 326 of RPC cannot be invoked in the case. He said “the stones used were not dangerous weapons and the offence should have been charged under section 325 which deals with causing grievous hurt without weapons”.
After examining the provision sections 325 and 326 RPC , Justice Kumar emphasised that the appellant’s act, though resulting in grievous hurt, did not involve the use of instruments classifiable as dangerous weapons.
He said that having regard to the fact that the fight which resulted in the grievous hurt to the complainant was not premeditated, the injury was caused by pelting of small stones. It is a foregone conclusion that what was used by the appellant for causing grievous hurt to the complainant was not a dangerous weapon so as to bring the act of the appellant within the meaning of section 326 of RPC.
The bench determined that the stones used did not qualify as ‘dangerous weapons’ under Section 326 RPC, citing the Supreme Court case of Mathai vs. State of Kerala, 2005(3) SCC 260, which discussed the distinction between Sections 325 and 326 RPC.
Explaining further, Justice Kumar observed that Singh was aware of the potential consequences of his actions and the fact that pelting stones could cause grievous hurt but the size of the stones used did not elevate the offence to one committed with a dangerous weapon under section 326.
Quoting a Supreme Court judgment, the court stated, “It is not that in every case a stone would constitute a dangerous weapon. It would depend upon the facts of the case.”
Consequently, the court set aside Singh’s conviction under Section 326 RPC and convicted him under Section 325 RPC, which carries a lesser penalty.
