SAKHARAM versus STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH &ANR.
[2015] 14 S.C.R. 269, Supreme Court of India, 2015
Outcome: Case Partly allowed (Granted)
Segment: Ratio
[2015] 14 S.C.R. 269 
SAK HARAM 
v. 
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH &ANR. 
(Civil Appeal No. 1079 of 2015) 
AUGUST 19, 2015 
. [T. S. THAKUR, V. GOPALA GOWDA AND 
R. BANUMATHI, JJ.] 
A 
B 
Penal Code, 1860 - s.325 and s.320, Clause (7) -
Offence of voluntarily causing grievous hurt -
Wordy c 
altercation - Both complainant party and accused party 
gathered and there was a fight-Appellant inflicted two lathi 
blows on the head of PW-2- Trial Court convicted appellant 
u/s.302 /PC as also u/s.307 /PC - High Court set aside 
appellant's conviction uls.302 /PC and modified his D 
conviction u/s.307 /PC as conviction uls.325 /PC - Held: 
Insofar as the injuries sustained by PW-2, injury No. 1 was 
found to be a lacerated wound size 2 x Y. cm deep upto the 
skin on the right side of the head; whereas injury No.2 was a 
lacerated wound size 2 x Y, cm deep upto the skin on the left E 
side of the head- Doctor (PW-15) opined that both the injuries 
were inflicted by a blunt and hard object - X-ray report 
revealed that there was a fracture of the frontal bone of the 
head of PW2 and there was a callus - By perusal of X-ray 
report, it is evident that PW-2 sustained fracture or dislocation F 
of the bone which clearly falls in the category of grievous 
·hurt as expressly mentioned in clause (7) of s.320 /PC -
Having regard to the nature of injuries and the X-ray report, 
·the High Court rightly convicted the appellant u/s.325 IPC. 
Sentence I Sentencing -
Wordy altercation - Both G
complainant party and accused party gathered and there was 
a fight - Appellant inflicted two lathi blows on the head of 
PW-2- Trial Court convicted appellant under s.302 /PC as 
also under s.307 /PC - High Court set aside appellant's 
269 
H
270 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2015) 14 S.C.R. 
A conviction u/s.302 IPC and modified his conviction u/s.307 
/PC as conviction uls.325 IPC and sentenced him to undergo 
RI for seven years - Quantum of sentence challenged before 
Supreme Court - Held: Imposition of sentence is always a 
matter of discretion of the Court -
The measure of 
B punishment in a given case must depend upon nature of the 
offence, the conduct of the accused and unprotected state of 
victim - Supreme Court will not interfere with the sentence 
unless it finds. tf?at the discretion has been exercised 
arbitrarily or capriciously or on unsound principles or that 
C the lower court or the High Court has not taken ihto account 
any relevant factor in imposing the sentence- In the present 
case, as the occurrence was a sudden fight and in a fit of 
passion the appellant inflicted injuries on PW-2 ..:. The 
sentence of imprisonment of seven years imposed on the 
D appellant is excessive and the same is to be reduced- While 
confirming the conviction u/s.325 /PC, the sentence of 
imprisonment of seven years imposed on him is reduced to 
three years-Penal Code, 1860- s.325. 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal 
E Appeal No. 1079 of 2015. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 01.08.2013 of the 
High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabapur in Criminal Appeal 
No. 935 of 2004. 
F 
Himanshu Dubey and M.C. Dhingra, Advs. for the 
Appellant. 
Naveen and Mishra Saurabh,Advs. for the Respondents. 
The Judgment of the
Court was delivered by 
G 
R. BANUMATHI, J. 1. Leave granted. 
2. This appeal arises out of the judgment dated 
01.08.2013 passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at 
Jabalpur in Criminal Appeal No.935 of 2004 whereby the High 
H. Court partly allowed the appeal thereby modifying the
SAKHARAM v. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH 
271 
[R. BANUMATHI, J.] 
conviction of the appellant-Sakharam under Section 307 IPC A 
to Section 325 IPC and sentencing him to undergo rigorous 
imprisonment for seven years and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/-
with default clause. 
3. Briefly stated case of the prosecution is that 
complainant-Ramnath (PW-1) lives in village-Devrimaal arid 
B 
runs a flourmill and also an agriculturist. On 09.06.2002 at 
about 6.00 p.111., when Ramnath-PW-1 was working at his 
flourmill, Raju came to PW-1 's flourmill and asked him whether 
Ramnath called Jogi Lodhi for a meal in Jhalarfunction to which 
the complainant replied in the negative and on this issue there C 
was a wordy altercation between them. At about 7.30 p.m., 
when Ramnath was returning back from his flourmill in front of 
one Prahlad Vishwakarma's house, Raju wrongfully restrained 
him and started quarrelling with him. At that time Vipatlal-
grandfather of Raju came thereon with lathi and hit the D 
complainant-Ramnath's head. On hearing the hues and cries 
of the fight, from the complainant's side, his nephew Santu 
Lodhi (PW-2) and his younger brother Badri Lodhi came to 
the spot and from the side of the accused Raju's father-Tularam 
armed with a sharp iron rod (Ballam) and appellant-Sakharam 
E 
armed with lathi came to the spot. Accused Tularam pierced 
his Ballam on the left side of the chest of Sadri, when 
complainant- Ramnath(PW-1) tried to prevent, Tularam also 
attacked Ramnath
on his left shoulder with the Ballam. 
Appellant-Sakharam caused two /athi blows on the head of F 
Santu-PW-2 due to which he became unconscious. Raju threw 
Ramnath (PW-1) on the ground due to which Ramnath (PW-1) 
su·stained head injuries. On hearing the noise, Jogi Lodhi (PW-
10), Mahasingh (PW-5), Shivsingh Gond (PW-8) came to the 
spot and intervened to stop the fight. Badri succumbed to G 
injuries. 
4. On the complaint lodged by complainant-Ramnath 
(PW-1 ), FIR was registered in FIR No.58 of 2002 under 
Sections 341, 323, 324, 302 and 34 IPC at police station 
H
272 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015] 14S.C.R. 
A 
Chand, District-Chhindwara, Madhya Pradesh. Injured Santu 
(PW-2) was sent to the hospital for treatment. ASl-V.P. Mishra 
(PW-16) took up the investigation and after due investigation 
chargesheet was filed against Tularam, appellant-;:.akharam, 
Raju and Vipatlal. 
B 
5. Upon consideration of evidence, Additional Sessions 
Judge, Chhindwada, held that the prosecution has established 
the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Trial court 
vide its judgment dated 28.05.2004 convicted accused-Vipatlal 
and Raju under Sections 323 and 323 read with Sectiori 34 
C IPC respectively and each of them were sentenced to undergo 
three months rigorous imprisonment. Raju was also convicted 
under Section 341 IPC and a fine of Rs.500/- imposeel on him 
with default clause.Accused Tularam and accused appellant-
Sakharam were convicted under Sections 302, 302 IPC read 
D with Section 34 IPC respectively and each of them were 
sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life with a fine of 
Rs.2,000/-with default clause. They were also convicted under 
Sections 307 read with Section 34 IPC, 307 IPC respectively 
and each of them were sentenced to undergo ten years 
E rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs.500/- with default 
clause. 
6. Being aggrieved by the conviction and sentence 
awarded to them by the Additional Sessions Judge, the 
F accused-Tularam and appellant-Sakharam preferred criminal 
appeal before the High Court of Madhya
Pradesh Bench at 
Jabalpur. Conviction of accused-Tularam under Section 302 
IPC was confirmed. High Court vide impugned judgment dated 
01.08.2013 partly allowed appellant-Sakharam's appeal 
setting aside his conviction under Section 302 IPC and 
G modified his conviction under Section 307 IPC as conviction 
under Section 325 IPC and sentenced him to undergo rigorous 
imprisonment for seven years with a fine of Rs.2,000/-. This 
appeal assails the correctness of the conviction of the 
H
SAKHARAM v. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH 
273 
[R. BANUMATHI, J.] 
appellant-Sakharam under Section 325 IPC and the sentence A 
of imprisonment imposed upon him. 
7. Learned counsel for the appellant Mr.'Himanshu Dubey 
contended that a quarrel took place between the parties and 
the incident happened all of a sudden and without prior meeting 
of mind and accused-appellant had no common intention to B 
assault the complainant parties. It was submitted that Dr. 
Moitra-PW-15 did not opine about the nature of injuries caused 
to Santu-PW-2 and in the absence of evidence to prove that 
the injuries sustained by PW-2 were grievous injuries, the High 
Court erred in convicting the appellant under Section 325 IPC. C 
It was submitted that the sentence of imprisonment of seven 
years imposed on the appellant is harsh and excessive and 
prayed for reduction of the sentence. 
8. Learned counsel for the respondent Mr. Naveen D 
submitted that the appellant caused two blows on the head of 
Santu (PW-2) and considering the gravity of the offence and 
the injuries, the High Court rightly awarded the sentence of 
seven years and the same warrants no interference. 
9. Key witness Ramnath (PW-1) has clearly deposed that E 
the appellant attacked Santu (PW-2) with lathi on his head 
and his statement was further corroborated by the testimonies 
of Maltibai (PW-3), Mahasingh (PW-5), Shanta Bai (PW-7), 
Shiv Singh (PW-8), Jogi (PW-10) and Horilal (PW-11). 
Appellant himself claims that he
intervened to prevent the fight, 
F 
he himself has admitted that he has caused two injuries with 
lathi on the head of Santu-PW-2. In the light of the concurrent 
findings of the courts below and the admission of the appellant, 
inthe SLP, notice was issued only limited to the quantum of 
sentence. 
G 
1 O. Insofar as the injuries sustained by Santu-PW-2, injury 
No.1 was found to be a lacerated wound size 2 x Y:z cm deep 
upto the skin on the right side of the head; injury No.2 was a 
lacerated wound size 2 x Y, cm deep upto the skin on the left 
H
274 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015] 14S.C.R. 
A side of the head. Dr. Moitra-PW-15 opined that both the 
injuries were inflicted by a blunt and hard object. X-ray report 
(Ex. P-23) revealed that there was a fracture of the frontal bone 
of the head of Santu and there was a callus. Dr. Moitra-PW-
15 neither gave any opinion regarding nature of injuries caused 
B to Santu (PW-2) nor the questions were put to him. . 
11. 'Grievous hurt' is defined in Section 320 IPC. To make 
out the offence of voluntarily causing grievous hurt, there must 
be a specific hurt voluntarily inflicted and coming within the 
eight kinds of hurt enumerated in Section 320 IPC. By perusal 
C of X-ray report (Ex. P-23), it is evident that PW-2 sustained 
fracture or dislocation of the bone which clearly falls in the 
category of grievous hurt as expressly mentioned in clause (7) 
of Section 320 IPC. The fracture or dislocation of bone is 
considered grievous hurt because it causes great pain and 
D suffering to the injured person. Even though Dr. Moitra-PW-
15 was not questioned about the nature of the injuries, fracture 
of the frontal bone would bring the offence within the definition 
of 'grievous hurt'. Having regard to the nature of injuries and 
the X-ray report, in our view, the High Court rightly convicted 
E the appellant under Section 325 IPC and the same cannot be 
modified. 
12. For conviction under Section 325 IPC, the High Court 
imposed seven years rigorous imprisonment. The imposition '
F of sentence is always a matter of discretion of the Court. In 
imposing the sentence, Judge must consider variety of factors 
and circumstances and overall view of the situation and impose 
appropriate sentence. The measure of punishment in a given 
case must depend upon nature of the offence, the conduct of 
the accused and unprotected state of victim. The Supreme 
G Court will not interfere with the sentence unless this Court finds 
that the discretion has been exercised arbitrarily or capriciously 
or on unsound principles or that the lower court or the High 
Court has not taken into account any relevant factor in imposing 
the sentence. In the present case, when the complainant was 
H

SAKHARAM v. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH 
275 
[R. BANUMATHI, J.] 
returning from the flourmill, Raju restrained him and there was A 
a wordy altercation. On hearing the hues and cries, both 
complainant party and accused party gathered and there was 
a fight and in which the appellant inflicted two lathi blows on 
Santu-PW-2. As the occurrence was a sudden fight and in a fit 
of passion the appellant inflicted injuries on Santu-PW-2. In 
B 
our view, the sentence of imprisonment of seven years imposed 
on the appellant is excessive and the same is to be reduced. 
13. While confirming the conviction under Section 325 
IPC, the sentence of imprisonment of seven years imposed 
on him is reduced to three years and this appeal is partly C 
allowed. 
Bibhuti Bhushan Bose 
Appeal partly allowed.