The Kerala High Court has ruled that a person cannot be convicted under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code without a specific charge being framed for that offence during trial. The Court partially allowed a criminal revision petition filed by a private bus employee who had earlier been convicted for attacking a police constable during a roadside altercation.
Justice Jobin Sebastian observed that although the prosecution had proved that the police constable suffered injuries, the offence under Section 324 IPC could not legally survive because the accused had never been charged under that provision.
Background of the Case
According to the prosecution, the incident took place on August 1, 2005, on Sahodharan Ayyappan Road in Ernakulam. The accused and two others were employees of a private bus. Police alleged that the bus was being driven at high speed when a police constable questioned the driver. This allegedly led to an altercation during which the constable sustained injuries on his neck and arm.
The trial court acquitted all accused of offences under Sections 294(b) and 332 read with Section 34 IPC. However, the first accused, Babu Avarachan, was convicted under Section 324 IPC and sentenced to two years’ simple imprisonment along with a fine of Rs. 6,000. The appellate court later upheld the conviction and sentence.
The accused then approached the High Court through a criminal revision petition.
Court’s Observations
The High Court noted that the injured police constable had consistently described the incident and that his testimony was supported by medical evidence. The wound certificate showed scratch marks on the neck and swelling on the arm.
“The evidence of an injured witness alone can form the basis of conviction if it inspires confidence,” the Court observed while discussing the reliability of the constable’s testimony.
However, the Court said the main legal issue was whether a conviction under Section 324 IPC could stand when no formal charge under that section had ever been framed. Referring to Section 222 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, Justice Jobin Sebastian explained that a court can convict a person for a “minor offence” even without a separate charge, but only if the ingredients of that offence are already included in the main offence charged.
The Court pointed out that Section 324 IPC requires proof that hurt was caused using a dangerous weapon, which is not an ingredient of Section 332 IPC. It also noted that both offences carry the same maximum punishment of three years. Because of this, Section 324 IPC could not be treated as a “minor offence” of Section 332 IPC.
Decision of the Court
After examining the legal position, the High Court set aside the conviction and sentence under Section 324 IPC. However, the Court held that the evidence clearly established an offence of voluntarily causing simple hurt under Section 323 IPC, which is considered a lesser offence included within Section 332 IPC.
The Court ultimately convicted the accused under Section 323 IPC and reduced the sentence to imprisonment till the rising of the court along with a fine of Rs.1,000. In default of payment, the accused would undergo seven days’ simple imprisonment.
Case Details
Case Title: Babu Avarachan v. State of Kerala
Case Number: CRL.REV.PET NO. 187 OF 2016
Judge: Justice Jobin Sebastian
Decision Date: May 22, 2026
