Summary
The Supreme Court upheld refusal to discharge the appellant from a Section 326A acid-attack charge merely because the medical report described the injury as simple. Grievous hurt is only one of the specified forms of injury; the other listed injuries can attract the provision even if medically classified as simple. Section 326B addresses the specified throwing or attempted acts with the required intent. Contrary Rajasthan and Madras decisions were overruled; the trial merits remained open.
Issues
- Whether a simple-injury classification excludes a Section 326A charge or necessarily confines the case to Section 326B.
- Whether the statutory heading can restrict the plain operative language.
Provisions considered
- Sections 326A and 326B, including Explanations 1–2, Indian Penal Code, 1860Actual occurrence of a specified acid-related injury distinguishes section 326A; the first seven specified injury forms need not invariably amount to grievous hurt or irreversible damage. Section 326B covers its specified acts and attempts with the required intent. (¶¶ 5–9, 16–17)
- Sections 319, 320 and 326, Indian Penal Code, 1860The earlier hurt and grievous-hurt framework was contrasted with the special acid-attack provisions introduced in 2013. (¶ 3–7)
Held
- Grievous hurt is one of eight specified injury categories, not a condition governing every category in section 326A. Permanent or partial damage, deformity, burns, maiming, disfigurement and disability may attract the provision even when described as simple, if the statutory requirements are met; damage need not be irreversible. (¶¶ 5–9, 16)
- Section 326A concerns actual specified injury with the requisite intention or knowledge and carries a minimum ten-year sentence plus fine directed to the victim’s treatment. Section 326B addresses the specified throwing or attempted acts with intent to cause the listed injuries, with its separate five-to-seven-year punishment. A simple-injury label does not itself determine the distinction. (¶ 7–9)
- A heading is a broad indicator and may assist with ambiguity, but cannot override clear operative words or narrow the provision when its language is unambiguous. (¶ 10–13)
- Laddu Ram and M. Siluvai Murugan were overruled insofar as they treated simple injury as excluding section 326A or requiring substitution of section 326B. (¶ 14–16)
- The charge and refusal of discharge were upheld. All other factual and merits issues remained for trial, uninfluenced by the judgment’s observations. (¶ 17)
Result
Appeal dismissed; Section 326A charge and refusal of discharge upheld. Trial merits left open; contrary Rajasthan and Madras rulings overruled.