Robbery Not Proved, but Tooth Loss Establishes Grievous Hurt: Supreme Court Alters Section 394 IPC Conviction to Section 325, Orders Release on Sentence Undergone

Case Name: Appa v. The State of Maharashtra.

Date of Judgment: 7 October 2026.

Citation: 2026 INSC 1091.

Bench: Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice Shree Chandrashekhar.

Held: The Supreme Court held that proof of robbery or attempted robbery is an essential ingredient of Section 394 IPC, and proof of assault alone cannot sustain a conviction under that provision. On the evidence before it, the alleged removal of jewellery was insufficiently established, although the appellant’s assault causing the complainant to lose an upper incisor tooth was proved through eyewitness testimony and medical evidence. Applying Section 222 Cr.P.C., the Court altered the conviction to voluntarily causing grievous hurt under Section 325 IPC. It also held that the absence of a Test Identification Parade was not fatal in the circumstances, given the complainant’s prior acquaintance with the appellant and the opportunity to identify him during the incident.

Summary: The Supreme Court partly allowed an appeal against a Bombay High Court judgment affirming Appa’s conviction under Section 394 IPC and a sentence of seven years’ rigorous imprisonment with a fine of ₹1,000. The prosecution arose from a nighttime attack at a farmhouse on 23 January 1993.

According to the complainant, four assailants approached the farmhouse where she, her husband and their minor daughter lived. The appellant sat beside her on a cot, threatened her with a knife and injured her hand when she resisted. He then punched her in the face, causing an upper tooth to fall out, and allegedly removed her gold mangalsutra and dorle. The other assailants attacked or restrained her family members before fleeing. A complaint was lodged shortly afterwards, and the injured family members underwent medical examination that night.

The appellant challenged his identification, relying on the nighttime occurrence, covered faces, absence of a Test Identification Parade and the allegation that police had shown him to witnesses after arrest. The Supreme Court rejected this challenge. It noted that the FIR was lodged at 1:50 a.m., within four hours of the incident, and that the complainant identified the appellant by name and residence and explained their prior acquaintance. Her account was corroborated by the injured eyewitnesses. The appellant had been close to her during the assault, the incident lasted about an hour, and witnesses stated that the porch bulb was switched on.

The Court nevertheless distinguished proof of the appellant’s identity and assault from proof of robbery. The jewellery allegation rested entirely on the complainant’s assertion. No jewellery was recovered, nothing incriminating was seized from the appellant, and no purchase receipt or other material established the articles’ identity or value. Although the spot panchanama recorded scattered beads, the prosecution did not connect them through evidence to the alleged mangalsutra. On that evidentiary record, the Court declined to sustain the Section 394 conviction.

Invoking Section 222 Cr.P.C., corresponding to Section 245 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, the Court examined whether the proved facts established a minor or cognate offence despite the absence of a separate charge. It relied on Rafiq Ahmed @ Rafi v. State of U.P., 2011 INSC 546, concerning conviction for a less grave offence whose ingredients are established by the evidence.

The Court declined to apply Section 326 IPC. Although medical evidence showed an incised hand wound caused by a sharp, hard object, no weapon had been recovered or linked to that injury, and the wound was relatively shallow. However, the complainant’s account that the appellant punched her mouth and dislodged her upper incisor was supported by medical evidence. That injury fell within the definition of grievous hurt under Section 320 IPC, justifying conviction under Section 325.

On sentence, the Court considered the overall circumstances, including the appellant’s stated age of approximately 63–64 years and total incarceration of about ten months. Referring to Mathai v. State of Kerala, 2005 INSC 30, it reduced the substantive imprisonment to the period already undergone while retaining the fine.

Decision: The Supreme Court partly allowed the appeal, altered the conviction from Section 394 IPC to Section 325 IPC and reduced the substantive prison sentence to the period already undergone.