The Supreme Court has held that a conviction for voluntarily causing hurt during robbery cannot be sustained unless the essential element of robbery or attempted robbery is established. Finding the evidence insufficient to sustain the robbery charge in a case arising from a 1993 farmhouse attack, the Court altered the conviction to voluntarily causing grievous hurt and reduced the seven-year prison sentence to the period already undergone.

A bench of Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice Shree Chandrashekhar partly found that the prosecution had sufficiently established the appellant’s identity and his act of punching the complainant, which caused an upper incisor tooth to fall out. However, it concluded that the evidence concerning the alleged removal of her jewellery did not justify maintaining the conviction under Section 394 of the Indian Penal Code.

Buy Now: 90+ Supreme Court Judgments – September 2026

Background Of The Case

The prosecution case concerned an incident on January 23, 1993, at a farmhouse situated in agricultural fields in Maharashtra. The complainant lived there with her husband and minor daughter.

After dinner, the complainant was sleeping on a cot on the porch, while her daughter slept nearby. Her husband had gone to irrigate the onion crop near a well when four persons allegedly arrived at the house.

According to the complainant, the appellant sat close to her on the cot, placed a knife against her neck and threatened her. When she attempted to resist and seize the knife, she sustained an injury to her hand. She further alleged that he punched her in the face, knocking out an upper tooth, and removed her gold mangalsutra and “dorle”, collectively weighing approximately five tolas and valued at ₹4,000.

The prosecution also alleged that the other assailants assaulted members of the family, demanded information about money received from the onion crop and restrained the complainant’s husband. The assailants subsequently fled towards the railway line.

An FIR was registered at Manmad City Police Station under Sections 394 read with 34 of the IPC. The injured family members underwent medical examination the same night.

The trial court convicted the appellant under Section 394 and sentenced him to seven years’ rigorous imprisonment with a ₹1,000 fine. The Bombay High Court affirmed his conviction and sentence on January 16, 2026, leading to the appeal before the Supreme Court.

Absence Of Identification Parade Did Not Undermine Identification

The appellant challenged his identification, arguing that the incident occurred at night, the assailants’ faces were covered and no Test Identification Parade had been conducted. He also contended that the police had shown him to the witnesses after his arrest and relied on statements made by the complainant’s husband and daughter during cross-examination concerning their lack of prior acquaintance with the assailants.

The Supreme Court rejected this challenge after examining the circumstances relied upon by the courts below.

It noted that the FIR had been lodged at 1:50 a.m., within four hours of the incident. The complainant had identified the appellant by name and place of residence and explained the nature of her prior acquaintance with him. She maintained this account during both examination-in-chief and cross-examination.

Her husband also stated that the appellant used to visit their village to meet relatives. The Court further considered that the appellant had allegedly sat close to the complainant, that the incident lasted about an hour and that multiple witnesses said the porch light was switched on.

In these circumstances, the Court found no reason to disbelieve the complainant’s identification and held that the absence of a Test Identification Parade was not fatal to the prosecution case.

Medical Evidence Supported The Assault

The doctor who examined the complainant recorded seven recent injuries, including abrasions on her chest and neck, an incised wound on her left hand, blunt trauma to several parts of her body and the loss of a left upper incisor tooth accompanied by bleeding gums and swelling of the upper lip.

The doctor classified the tooth injury as grievous and the remaining injuries as simple.

The Supreme Court found that this medical evidence materially corroborated the complainant’s account of the assault. Nevertheless, it separately examined whether the evidence established the ingredients necessary for conviction under Section 394.

Robbery Was An Essential Ingredient Of The Charged Offence

The Court explained that Section 394 applies when an offender voluntarily causes hurt while committing or attempting to commit robbery. Robbery or attempted robbery is therefore an essential component of the offence.

In this case, the allegation of robbery rested entirely on the complainant’s statement that the appellant had snatched her mangalsutra and dorle.

The Court noted that the jewellery had not been recovered and that nothing incriminating had been seized from the appellant’s possession. The complainant also admitted during cross-examination that there was no purchase receipt or other material establishing the identity or value of the articles.

Although the High Court had relied on the spot panchanama recording the presence of scattered wooden tulsi beads and black beads on the porch, the Supreme Court found that those beads had not been connected through evidence to the alleged mangalsutra.

It further noted that only pieces of rope had been exhibited and their seizure proved through a panch witness before the trial court.

Considering these evidentiary deficiencies, the Court held that the conviction under Section 394 could not be sustained.

Conviction Altered To Grievous Hurt Despite No Separate Charge

The Supreme Court then considered whether the proved facts justified conviction for a lesser offence.

It referred to Section 222 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, corresponding to Section 245 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. The provision permits conviction for a minor offence where its ingredients are established by the evidence, even if that offence was not separately charged.

Relying on Rafiq Ahmed @ Rafi v. State of U.P., the bench explained that the principle of cognate offences allows courts to convict an accused for a less grave offence when its essential elements are proved, although the original charge concerned a more serious offence.

The Court also examined whether Section 326 of the IPC, concerning grievous hurt by dangerous weapons or means, was attracted.

While the complainant’s account of a knife injury was partly supported by medical evidence, the doctor had only stated that the wound was caused by a sharp, hard object. No weapon had been recovered from the appellant or linked to that injury. The Court additionally noted that the wound, measuring 7 × ½ × ½ cm, was relatively shallow.

It therefore found that the case did not warrant conviction under Section 326.

However, the complainant’s testimony and medical evidence sufficiently established that the appellant had punched her in the mouth and caused her upper incisor tooth to fall out. The Court held that this injury fell within the definition of grievous hurt under Section 320 of the IPC, which includes fracture or dislocation of a bone or tooth.

Accordingly, it altered the conviction to Section 325 of the IPC.

On sentencing, the Court recorded that the appellant had initially remained in custody for 91 days, from January 27 to April 27, 1993. He remained on bail during the prolonged proceedings and subsequently surrendered pursuant to the Supreme Court’s direction dated February 27, 2026.

According to the judgment, he had undergone approximately ten months of incarceration and was around 63–64 years old.

The bench referred to Mathai v. State of Kerala, where the Supreme Court had altered a conviction to Section 325 and restricted imprisonment to the period already undergone in the particular circumstances of that case. The cited decision also recognised that the passage of time cannot invariably determine the appropriate sentence.

Having considered the overall circumstances, the bench reduced the appellant’s substantive imprisonment to the period already undergone while retaining the ₹1,000 fine.

The appeal was consequently partly allowed, with a direction that the appellant be released forthwith unless required in custody in another case.

Membership Required to Access Case Details & Order Copy

To view the complete Case Details and Download Order Copy, you must have an active membership. Please subscribe to continue.

Read More: Recovery Of ₹66.46 Lakh Tax Demand Stayed Subject To ₹14 Lakh Deposit: ITAT