This article is written by Upasana Sarkar. In this article, the judgement of Mathai v. State of Kerala (2005) has been discussed. This article gives a detailed understanding and an extensive analysis of this case. It deals with the facts, issues, judgement and case laws relating to this case. It also includes all the laws relating to grievous hurt under the Indian Penal Code.

Introduction

In a case, where one person hurts another person, there are certain elements that need to be taken into consideration to determine the amount of punishment that needs to be awarded to the accused person by the Court. Mathai v. State of Kerala (2005) is a case of grievous hurt, which is defined under Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. It is an important case where the Supreme Court of India reversed the judgement of the Kerala High Court and convicted the accused under Section 325 of the Indian Penal Code. It was also observed that there is no hard and fast rule available for determining what constitutes a suitable sentence and the passage of time is not always a deciding element. It is one of the landmark cases where the opinion of the Supreme Court was that determining if a particular article can by itself cause any severe harm or not will depend upon the facts and circumstances of the case. 

This article deals with a detailed and exhaustive analysis of the case of Mathai v. State of Kerala (2005). All the aspects involved in this case are comprehensively discussed in this article.

Download Now

Details of Mathai v. State of Kerala (2005)

  • Case name: Mathai v. State of Kerala (2005)
  • Equivalent Citations: AIR 2005 SC 710, 2005 (3) SCC 260, 2005 AIR SCW 368, (2005) 1 JCR 213 (SC), 2005 (1) SCALE 293, (2005) 2 JT 365 (SC), 2005 (2) JT 365
  • Act involved: Indian Penal Code, 1860
  • Important provisions: Section 320, Section 325 and Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code 
  • Court: Supreme Court of India
  • Bench: Justice Arijit Pasayat and Justice S.H. Kapadia
  • Petitioners: Mathai
  • Respondents: State of Kerala 
  • Judgement Date: 12 January, 2005

Facts of Mathai v. State of Kerala (2005)

On 27th October 1992, the victim, Krishnan Kutty, was walking down the road which was situated near Pulinchode Cruz Junction when the accused intentionally hit him with a stone causing injuries on his head and face. The victim had no idea that such an incident would occur. He was unarmed and the accused took advantage of that situation. This incident took place around 5.30 pm in the evening. The victim was then rushed to a nearby hospital named Medical Mission Hospital, Kolenchery for treatment. He was very badly injured as said by the doctor who treated him. 

A complaint was registered by the Head Constable of Puthencruz Police Station. On the basis of that FIR, the Assistant Sub-inspector of that police station, Radhakrishnan, started investigating the case. He looked into the primary evidence as well as the witnesses of the case. After completing his investigation, he submitted the charge sheet to the Court. The report showed that the accused with the intention of hurting the victim committed that offence. The injuries sustained by the victim as stated by the doctor were

  • Lacerated wound over the left posterior parietal region of the head.
  • Fracture of the left upper second incisor tooth involving the pulp and the root.

The suit for this case was first filed in the Trial Court of Kerala, where he was held guilty under Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code. It was then tried in the High Court of Kerala, where the Court upheld the decision of the Trial Court and finally to the Supreme Court when the accused filed an appeal petition against the decision of the Kerala High Court. 

Prior proceedings

Decision of the Trial Court of Kerala

The victim was taken to the hospital after being attacked by the accused. He had been treated by the doctors of Medical Mission Hospital, Kolenchery. Afterwards, the victim, who was badly injured, on being attacked by the accused, filed a complaint in Puthencruz Police Station. The Assistant Sub-inspector of that police station investigated the matter and submitted the charge-sheet in the Trial Court. The suit was filed by the victim in the Trial Court at first. The accused was held guilty in the Trial Court of Kerala under Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code. He was convicted of 2 years of rigorous imprisonment for causing ‘grievous hurt’ to the victim.

Decision of the High Court of Kerala 

The accused, on being convicted by the Trial Court, submitted his appeal petition against the judgement of the Single Judge of the Kerala High Court. The Court upheld the decision of the Single Judge Bench convicting him of ‘voluntarily causing hurt with a dangerous weapon’ and punishing him with 2 years of rigorous imprisonment. In this case, the victim was harmed by the accused with the help of a big stone that acted as a ‘dangerous weapon’ in this case as it caused severe injuries to the victim. He had been admitted to the hospital as his face and head got distorted by that big stone. Aggrieved by the judgement of the High Court, the accused filed an appeal in the Supreme Court of India.

In this case, the Single Bench Judge of the Kerala High Court affirmed the judgement of the Trial Court and upheld the accused guilty under Section 326. He was convicted with two years of rigorous imprisonment as a punishment for trying to murder a person, the victim in this instant. The Learned First Class Judicial Magistrate confirmed the sentence passed by the Third Additional Sessions Judge, Ernakulam. The Judicial Magistrate dismissed the petition that was filed by the appellant under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. He upheld the decision of Justice Ernakulam stating that the accused was guilty of grievously hurting the victim on his head and face intentionally.

Issues raised

  • Whether the injuries sustained by the victim fall under the category of “grievous hurt”?
  • Whether the weapon used by the accused to injure the victim can be called a “dangerous weapon” in this case?
  • Whether the crime committed by the accused comes under the purview of Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code?
  • Whether they be sentenced to 2 years of rigorous imprisonment after already spending more than ten years in prison or not? 

Arguments of the parties in Mathai v. State of Kerala (2005)

Appellant

The accused denied the charge imposed on him by the petitioner. The appellant, in support of his appeal, stated the following arguments-

  • The injuries that were caused to the victim do not constitute “grievous hurt”, as confirmed by the doctors. 
  • He also stated that the evidence provided by the witnesses must not be relied upon. 
  • It was also contended by the appellant that the weapon, that is, the stone used cannot be termed as a “dangerous weapon” and, thus, it will not attract Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code. 
  • The appellant also argued that he has already served the majority of the sentence awarded to him in jail as more than ten years have passed. 
  • The accused, therefore, requested for suitable sentence modification as he has undergone imprisonment for the past few years.

Thus, the appellant requested the Supreme Court to overturn the judgement of the Kerala High Court.

Respondent

The respondent stated the following grounds to prove the accused responsible- 

  • The respondent, on the other hand, contended that Reji Paul, the doctor of the Medical Mission Hospital, had examined the victim and issued a wound certificate that clearly tells that the victim had sustained a major injury on his face and head. 
  • This certificate is important evidence for this case, which states that the injury faced by the victim comes under the definition of ‘grievous hurt’. 
  • It was also stated by the petitioner that an eyewitness who saw the incident also confirmed the same thing as the doctors who examined him and who issued him the Discharge Certificate. 
  • When the eyewitnesses were examined further, they also said that the accused had voluntarily attacked the victim with the intention of injuring him. 

Therefore, the decision imposed by the Kerala High Court must be upheld and the accused must face the conviction sentence.

Law discussed in Mathai v. State of Kerala (2005)

In this case, the prosecution invoked the charge that the accused had grievously hurt the victim. The term ‘grievous hurt’ has been defined in Section 320 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. Section 320 of the Indian Penal Code deals with all the hurts that fall under the term ‘grievous hurt’, which are as follows-

  • The first one is emasculation. It means removal of male external sex organs like the penis and the scrotum.
  • The second one is the loss of vision in one or both eyes permanently.
  • The third one is permanent loss of hearing in one or both ears.
  • The fourth one is the loss of any limb or joint.
  • The fifth one is irreversible loss or impairment of any joint or member’s powers. The term ‘member’ means a limb or an organ of a body.
  • The sixth one is a permanent deformity of the face or skull.
  • The seventh one is the fracture or displacement of any bone or tooth.
  • The eighth one is any hurt that puts the victim’s life in jeopardy, renders them unable to engage in their regular activities for twenty days, or both.

Section 325 deals with the penalty that would be imposed upon the person who voluntarily causes grievous hurt to another person and Section 326 deals with the crimes of voluntarily causing hurt to a person with the help of dangerous weapons or by other methods. Section 326 states that cases where the punishment of imprisonment for life or imprisonment up to ten years along with a fine would be imposed upon the convict if the victim is grievously injured voluntarily, which are as follows-

  • an instrument that is used for cutting, stabbing, or shooting;
  • an instrument used as a weapon to presumably cause death;
  • by using fire or any other explosive substances;
  • any other corrosive substance;
  • by using explosive materials or materials that are harmful for a person to inhale, swallow, or come into contact with the blood;
  • with the help of any animals.

The only exception is Section 335 where this Section will not be applicable as in this case one person grievously hurts another person on provocation and not voluntarily. In the case of Section 335, the punishment is less as the voluntary hurt is caused by provocation. So, the accused in that case if held guilty will be imprisoned for a term of four years, or with a fine of a maximum of two thousand rupees, or both.

All these eight injuries fall under the category of grievous hurt. These kinds of hurt are more serious kinds of hurt where the person feels severe pain. In case a wound that causes severe pain, long-lasting injury, or prolonged disease to the victim and does not come under the first seven categories of hurt, falls under the eighth category. The Court, before awarding the conviction sentence to the accused, properly examines the injury that has been suffered by the victim and sees whether that injury falls under any of the eight categories of Section 320 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. In such cases, the weapon that has been used to cause the death of a person would also be examined. It will be seen whether that instrument used for killing comes under the term ‘dangerous weapon’ or not. 

Therefore, deciding whether the accused can be convicted under Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code or not depends upon the following ingredients, which are as follows-

  • The hurt caused to a person is done voluntarily.
  • The injury caused to a person must come under the category of grievous hurt.
  • The injury caused to a person must be done with the help of some dangerous weapons or methods.

Judgement in Mathai v. State of Kerala (2005)

The judgement of this case was passed by the Supreme Court in 2005 when the appellant filed an appeal petition against the decision of the Kerala High Court. The accused was sent to jail for trying to kill the victim with the help of a big stone causing grievous hurt. The victim had suffered serious injuries in his head and face on being attacked by the accused when he was walking down the road. In order to get justice, the victim filed a complaint in the Kerala High Court against the accused. 

The High Court of Kerala stating that the accused had intentionally injured him passed the judgement in favour of the victim by sending the accused to prison for two years. So the Court awarded him two years of rigorous imprisonment under Section 326 as he committed the crime voluntarily. 

The findings of the Court were that there was no reason for the victim to charge the accused in error. The doctor who treated the victim confirmed that grievous hurt was caused to him as a big stone was used to hit him. He has shown clear and cogent evidence and there was no reason present that will justify the reason of falsely implicating the accused.

The Supreme Court after taking into consideration the evidence and witnesses of the case reversed the decision of the lower Court and observed that the stone used in this case cannot be termed as a ‘dangerous weapon’. The Court took into account its size before altering the verdict of the High Court. The accused was convicted under Section 325 of the Indian Penal Code and not under Section 326. It was also stated by the Court that the appellant had already suffered a major part of this sentence in the prison. So the appellant had already suffered the punishment. Hence, the Court ordered to release of the appellant if there were no other cases pending in his name. By stating this decision, the Supreme Court disposed of the appeal accordingly. In this case, a big stone was not considered a ‘dangerous weapon’ by the Court. 

The rationale behind this judgement

While dealing with this case, the Supreme Court took the view of the State of Uttar Pradesh v. Indrajeet Alias Sukhatha (2000), where it was observed that there is no particular thing or weapon that can be called a murder weapon, which can be used for committing murder or severe hurt that will amount to the death of a person. To determine whether a particular weapon can cause severe harm to a person which can lead to the death of a person will be determined factually by the Court looking into the circumstances of the case. In this case, the doctor, Dr. R. V. Devdas (PW5), who submitted the report, clearly stated that the injury caused to the victim falls under the expression ‘grievous hurt’ that is defined in Section 320 of the Indian Penal Code. It was inevitably concluded that the injury caused was a grievous hurt. It was stated by the Court that a stone would not be considered as a dangerous weapon in every case. It will totally depend upon the facts and circumstances of the case. It was also observed that the instrument used for murdering someone can be called a ‘dangerous weapon’ in some cases as stated in Section 324 and Section 326, while, in other cases, it can be called a ‘deadly weapon’ which is mentioned in Section 397 and Section 398 of the Indian Penal Code. While determining whether the weapon used in a case to hurt someone can be considered a dangerous weapon or not depends upon the sharpness, size, and other similar factors. These are the factors that will guide a Court to decide whether Section 325 or Section 326 will be applicable in a particular case. Thus, the Court will pass its judgement only after taking into consideration all the above factors as well as the circumstances of a particular case.

Analysis of Mathai v. State of Kerala (2005)

Criminal litigation

In this case, the Single Bench Judge of the Kerala High Court confirmed the judgement of the Trial Court upholding the convict’s two-year rigorous imprisonment sentence as he was guilty of an offence punishable by the Indian Penal Code. The appeal submitted by the accused was looked into by the High Court but it affirmed the judgement of the Trial Court as the accused was rightly found to be guilty under Section 326.

After analysing the details of this case before and after the pronouncement of its judgement by the Supreme Court of India and its implementation in recent times in India, some positive effects and a few shortcomings can be found.

Positive impact of the judgement

In India, there are three types of courts, as well all know. The first is at the district level, with District Courts, the second is at the State level, with the High Court, and the final one is the Supreme Court of India. When the Supreme Court of India pass any judgement, all the High Courts and the District Courts are bound to follow them while giving judgement in similar kinds of cases in future. 

The guidelines of this case will be referred for future similar kinds of cases. In this case, it was highlighted that if any accused suffers a major portion of his sentence, he can be released from the prison, if he is not involved in any other case. The Supreme Court observed that the accused has already got the punishment for the offence that he has committed and therefore, altered the verdict passed by the High Court of Kerala. This case has also shown how the cases go on for years and both the victim and the accused have to suffer as a result of that. In such cases, the accused could be released after taking into consideration the circumstances of the case and the condition of the accused. Since the accused had already completed a major portion of the sentence that was awarded to him, it can be said that the Supreme Court’s decision to release him from prison was correct. 

Shortcomings of the judgement

In this case, the Supreme Court while dealing with this case observed that it does not fulfil the requirements of Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code which includes the terms ‘grievous hurt’, ‘voluntarily’, and ‘dangerous weapon’. The Apex Court stated that the stone cannot be termed as a ‘dangerous weapon’ and, therefore, held the accused convict under Section 325. However, the accused knew that if any person’s head and face are crushed with a big stone, it will cause serious injury, eventually leading to the death of a person. Then also he committed that crime without giving it a second thought. He had harmed the victim voluntarily knowing the consequences that the victim had to suffer as a result. 

So, in my opinion, the Supreme Court could have taken into consideration the criminal mentality, that is, the malice behind, of the accused before altering the verdict of the lower Courts. The victim had to suffer such severe injuries at that moment. His face could have been permanently distorted. He could have lost his memories as well, or he could have even died if not been rushed into the hospital at that moment. If the Supreme Court had not overruled the judgement of the lower Courts, then in future any person with such a malafide intent coupled with such overt act would have given a second thought before committing a similar crime.

Relevance of this case in recent times

In a recent case of State of Maharashtra v. Mahadev Ramu Takkekar (2022), the petitioner on being beaten by the accused filed a suit in the Trial Court of Bombay. The petitioner and his family members were having some disputes with the accused over land. The land of the accused was adjacent to the land of the petitioner, where they used to cultivate. The petitioner and his family members had to pass through the land of the accused to go to their fields for agricultural work. The accused were not permitting them to pass through their lands and so they were having disputes regarding this matter for about 4 to 5 years. This problem had been settled at the village level. After that on 15th July, 1998, the accused went to the petitioner’s field and started abusing them. They were forcing the petitioner to leave the field and started beating causing injury. He was injured with the help of a sickle commonly known as ‘Khurpi’. He was then taken to a nearby Government hospital where his statement was recorded by the police. In the charge-sheet submitted by the police, the accused was charged with offences that are punishable under Section 323, Section 324, Section 325, Section 326, and Section 504 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The Trial Court held him guilty of Section 325 and not Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. He was convicted under Sections 325, 324, and 323 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The accused submitted an appeal to the Bombay High Court. The Bombay High Court affirmed the decision of the Trial Court. 

The impact of judgements like Mathai v. State of Kerala case can be understood by the judgement of the concerned case. Like the ‘big stone’ was not considered a ‘dangerous weapon’ in this case, similarly, the Court in the State of Maharashtra v. Mahadev Ramu Takkekar case held that ‘Khurpi’ cannot be considered a ‘dangerous weapon’ and convicted the offender under Sections 323, 324 and 325 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

Conclusion

Mathai v. State of Kerala (2005) is one of the cases that held rigorous two-year imprisonment for a convict who intentionally hurt another person causing severe pain and injury. The Supreme Court altered the verdict of the Kerala High Court and held the accused guilty under Section 325 and not Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code, where it is stated the punishment can be extended up to ten years imprisonment along with a fine. The Court has examined all the witnesses properly and came to the conclusion that the accused has deliberately committed the crime and, therefore, is liable to be punished. If the accused had not been awarded this punishment of imprisonment then in the future others would have committed the same crime without any fear and the common people would have lost all hope in the Indian legal system. So, the Court scrutinised each and every factor of this case, took into consideration the circumstances of the case and came to the decision that the accused was guilty of harming the victim voluntarily and he was convicted under Section 325 of the Indian Penal Code. Hence, the Court ensured the release of the accused so that he is not wrongly convicted of an offence which he has not committed.

Frequently asked questions (FAQs)

What is the difference between Section 325 and Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860?

Section 325 of the Indian Penal Code deals with the offence of voluntarily causing hurt to a person. It deals with regular or less serious injuries. This kind of hurt is caused without using any kind of ‘dangerous weapon’. Section 326, on the other hand, deals with offences that are caused voluntarily to a person with the help of any kind of ‘dangerous weapon’. It deals with more severe kinds of injuries. In these kinds of cases, the victim suffers ‘grievous hurt’ and that hurt is inflicted upon the victim by the accused with the help of a ‘dangerous weapon’.

What is the punishment awarded in case of an offence caused under Section 325 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860?

Offence under Section 325 is considered to be cognizable and bailable offence. The punishment awarded to the convicted person who has been held guilty under Section 325 is a maximum of seven years imprisonment, along with a fine. Any Court dealing with such cases would take into consideration the circumstances as well as the criminal history of the accused before awarding him any sentence.

What is the punishment awarded in case of an offence caused under Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860?

Offence under Section 326 is considered to be cognizable, non-bailable and non-compoundable offence. The punishment awarded to the convicted person who has been held guilty under Section 326 may extend to life imprisonment along with a fine. When such a case comes before any Court, it would take into consideration the circumstances as well as the criminal history of the accused before awarding him any sentence. The punishment awarded in this case is more severe than Section 325 because this Section deals with offences that are more serious in nature and the victim suffers grievous hurt. 

Can a person get bail in either of the cases?

In case of Section 325 of the Indian Penal Code, the accused can get a bail if he executes a bond with, or without sureties in accordance with the conditions imposed by the Court. He can also be granted bail on personal bond and without sureties. On the other hand, in case of Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code, the accused may or may not be granted bail by the Court. The Court, before granting him bail, will look into the evidence that has been presented against the accused. If the evidence is not strong enough and there is no way that the accused can tamper or abscond with evidence, the bail can be granted to the accused. But if there is any chance that the accused can tamper or abscond with evidence, the bail might not be given to the accused by the Court.

References

Students of Lawsikho courses regularly produce writing assignments and work on practical exercises as a part of their coursework and develop themselves in real-life practical skills.

LawSikho has created a telegram group for exchanging legal knowledge, referrals, and various opportunities. You can click on this link and join:

https://t.me/lawyerscommunity

Follow us on Instagram and subscribe to our YouTube channel for more amazing legal content.

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here