Facts
On 23.01.1993, four persons entered the complainant’s farmhouse at night. The appellant allegedly threatened the complainant with a knife, injured her hand, punched her in the face causing her upper incisor tooth to fall out, and removed her mangalsutra and dorle. The Trial Court convicted him under S.394 IPC and sentenced him to seven years’ rigorous imprisonment with a fine of ₹1,000. The High Court affirmed the conviction.
The appellant challenged his identification, principally relying on the absence of a Test Identification Parade and the fact that the incident occurred at night. The Supreme Court found his identification satisfactorily established, but separately examined whether the ingredients of S.394 IPC were proved.
Issues Framed
Whether the appellant’s identification was satisfactorily established despite the absence of a Test Identification Parade.
Whether the conviction under S.394 IPC was sustainable when the alleged robbed jewellery was neither recovered nor otherwise satisfactorily connected with the offence.
Whether the proved injury justified conviction for a minor offence under S.325 IPC.
Court’s Reasoning
(a) Identification
The Court held that the appellant’s identification was satisfactorily proved. The FIR was lodged at 1:50 a.m., within four hours of the incident. PW-1 categorically identified the appellant and described their prior acquaintance. Her daughter and husband, both injured eyewitnesses, corroborated the identification. The incident lasted about an hour and the porch bulb was switched on. Accordingly, the absence of a Test Identification Parade was not fatal.
(b) S.394 IPC
The Court held that robbery was an essential component of S.394 IPC and was not merely a peripheral circumstance. The allegation of robbery rested entirely on the complainant’s assertion regarding the mangalsutra and dorle. There was no recovery of the jewellery, no incriminating seizure from the appellant, and no purchase receipt or other material establishing the identity or value of the articles. The scattered beads found at the spot were also never connected through evidence to the mangalsutra.
The Court therefore held that the conviction under S.394 IPC could not be sustained.
(c) Alteration to S.325 IPC
Under S.222 CrPC, a person charged with a major offence may be convicted of a minor offence where the proved facts satisfy its essentials. The Court found that the appellant striking the complainant in the mouth and causing her left upper incisor to fall out was sufficiently proved by witness testimony and medical evidence. Loss of a tooth constitutes grievous hurt under S.320 IPC. The appropriate conviction was therefore S.325 IPC.
Held
The appeal was partly allowed. The conviction under S.394 IPC was altered to S.325 IPC. The substantive sentence was reduced to the period already undergone, while the fine of ₹1,000 was maintained. The appellant was directed to be released forthwith unless required in another case.
Conclusion
Where robbery, an essential ingredient of S.394 IPC, is not proved, but the evidence establishes that the accused voluntarily caused grievous hurt, conviction may be altered to S.325 IPC under the principle of cognate/minor offences.
Relevant Para
12. “However, we find that, from the evidence on record, the assertion of the complainant that the appellant struck her in her mouth and caused her left upper incisor tooth to fall out is sufficiently proved through witness testimony and medical evidence. The same falls squarely within the definition of ‘grievous hurt’ given in Section 320 of the IPC viz. fracture or dislocation of a bone or tooth. We thus consider it appropriate to alter the conviction of the appellant to one under Section 325 of the IPC.”
Case Details
Citation: 2026 INSC 1091
Decided on: 07 October 2026
Case Title: Appa v. The State of Maharashtra
Court: Supreme Court of India
Bench: Prashant Kumar Mishra, J.; Shree Chandrashekhar, J.