Judgment Intelligence
OtherAppa v. The State of Maharashtra
2026 INSC 1091
Criminal Appeal No. 4766 of 2026 (arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 4575 of 2026)
- Court
- Supreme Court of India
- Date of Decision
- 7 October 2026
- Bench
- Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice Shree Chandrashekhar
- Relevant Acts & Sections
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Sections 320, 325, 326, 394; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — Section 222 (Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — Section 245)
Final Outcome
Appeal partly allowed. The conviction was altered from Section 394 to Section 325 IPC and the sentence reduced to the period already undergone, with the fine of Rs 1,000 maintained; the appellant is to be released forthwith unless required in another case (para 15).
Key holdings
- Robbery is an essential ingredient of Section 394 IPC, not a peripheral circumstance (para 9).
- A robbery allegation resting only on the complainant's word, with no recovery or proof of the articles, cannot sustain Section 394 (para 9).
- The absence of a test identification parade is not fatal where the complainant knew the accused and saw him for long in light (para 7).
- Section 222 CrPC (Section 245 BNSS) allows conviction for a minor cognate offence proved by the evidence (para 10).
- Following Mathai, the sentence was restricted to the period already undergone, with the fine kept (paras 13-14).
Brief Facts
On the night of 23.01.1993 four persons entered a farmhouse in Nashik district. The complainant said the appellant held a knife to her neck, cut her hand when she resisted, punched her so that an upper tooth fell out, and took her gold mangalsutra and 'dorle' worth Rs 4,000 (para 3). The FIR was lodged within four hours (para 7). The Additional Sessions Judge, Malegaon convicted the appellant under Section 394 IPC and sentenced him to seven years' rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs 1,000, and on 16.01.2026 the Bombay High Court upheld this (paras 2, 5). He appealed alone (para 5).
Court's Findings
Identification was proved: the complainant named the appellant and described their prior acquaintance, the injured eyewitnesses corroborated her, the porch bulb was on and the incident lasted about an hour, so the lack of a test identification parade was not fatal (paras 6-7). The medical evidence, including a grievous injury from the lost tooth, supported the prosecution (para 8). But robbery is an essential component of Section 394, and it rested only on the complainant's assertion: the jewellery was never recovered, nothing was seized from the appellant, there was no proof of the articles' identity or value, and beads found on the porch were never linked to the mangalsutra (para 9). Under Section 222 CrPC, as explained in Rafiq Ahmed, a person may be convicted of a proved minor offence without a separate charge (para 10). The hand wound was shallow and no weapon was linked to it, so Section 326 did not apply (para 11); but knocking out a tooth is grievous hurt under Section 320, punishable under Section 325 (para 12).
Legal Principle
Where robbery, an essential ingredient of Section 394 IPC, is not proved, the court may under Section 222 CrPC convict for a proved minor offence without a separate charge. Knocking out a tooth is grievous hurt under Section 320 IPC, punishable under Section 325 (paras 9-12).
Precedents Relied Upon
- Rafiq Ahmed @ Rafi v. State of U.P. 2011 INSC 546
Section 222 CrPC embodies the principle of cognate offences: a court may convict for a minor or less grave offence whose ingredients are proved, even though the charge was framed for the major offence.
- Mathai v. State of Kerala 2005 INSC 30
Conviction altered to Section 325 IPC; no hard and fast rule governs sentence, and on the facts the sentence was restricted to the period already undergone.
