Section 325 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Explained!
Where the medical evidence showed that the deceased was attacked on the forehead by a lathi and the external and internal injury could not be correlated, the accused could be convicted under section 325 and not under section 304 as the essential requirements of that section were not present.
Where the accused gave some blows on the victim by the handle of an axe and none of the blows fell on vital parts of the body, it was held that the accused should be convicted under section 325 and not under section 307 for attempted murder. Where the accused, a young boy, had inflicted only one blow on the chest of the deceased at the spur of the moment on a sudden quarrel, it was held that he had committed an offence under section 325.
Where the two appellants caused many injuries on the neck, knees and elbow which were all simple in nature and not on vital parts but one of the injuries on the head was given with much force causing depressed fracture and fissures all over resulting in death, and the evidence could not establish a common intention to cause death but only grievous hurt by lathi and khunt, they were held guilty under section 325 read with section 34.
The Patna High Court has held that the words ‘shall also be liable to fine’ in section 325 mean that there is liability to pay fine and not that in all cases of conviction awarding of sentence must include payment of fine as well.
Where the accused persons caused eight injuries on a person and seventeen on each of the two others, and out of these only two were grievous and the rest simple in nature, it was held that they were guilty under section 325 read with section 149. Where the deceased had received two lacerated wounds on his scalp by a lathi and both these were simple in nature, the accused were held guilty of committing an offence under this section in furtherance of common intention. In another case, the victim was assaulted by his own father.
The dying declaration and the FIR was lodged by the victim himself who died two days after the incident. The FIR was trustworthy and corroborated by witnesses. The accused had given lathi blows on the son in a fit of rage without any intention to cause death. His conviction under section 302 was altered to one under section 325 of the Code.
In Bakkiaraj v. State the accused and deceased had a quarrel in which the accused pushed the deceased down from the steps of staircase and the deceased fell on stepping stone. There was no evidence that the accused had pushed the deceased deliberately on stepping stone. The conviction of the accused from under Section 304 Part II was altered to one under Section 325 of the Code.
In Shaikh Kalimullah v. State of Andhra Pradesh, the accused persons, including the appellant, were alleged to have fatally assaulted the deceased with sticks, iron rods and fists. Except one all other eye-witnesses ascribed only fist blows to the appellant. The Supreme Court altered his conviction to one under section 325 and further stated that section 34 could not have been applied when no charge was framed there under.
The offence under section 325 is cognizable, bailable and compoundable, where permission is given by the court trying the case, and is triable by any magistrate.