What Constitutes Dangerous Weapon

Source: Kerala High Court 

Why in News? 

Recently, Justice Kauser Edappagath has held that a stone can be considered a dangerous weapon under Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) if used in a manner likely to cause death. Justice Kauser Edappagath clarified that while weapons like knives or guns are inherently dangerous, other objects like stones fall under the second category and must be assessed based on their use. In this case, the stone caused a facial fracture, justifying conviction under Section 326 (Section 118 of BNS). 

• The Kerala High Court held this in the matter of Kumaran. v. State of Kerala (2025).

What was the Background of Kumaran. v. State of Kerala, (2025) Case ? 

• The case involves Kumaran, son of Vellan, from Kottothumal Colony, Edakkara Amsom Desom, Kozhikode Taluk, as the revision petitioner (accused), and the State of Kerala as the respondent. 
• On July 1, 1999, at approximately 3:00 p.m., an altercation occurred in Edakkara amsom, Thalakulathur Panchayat, Ward No. 8. According to the prosecution's case, Kumaran intentionally pushed down the de facto complainant (victim) onto the floor, grabbed hold of his neck, and struck his face with a stone, allegedly causing a fracture of the bone. 
• The case was initially filed as C.C. No. 787 of 1999 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Koyilandy. Kumaran was charged under Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), which deals with voluntarily causing grievous hurt by dangerous weapons or means. 
•  The prosecution examined witnesses PWs 1 to 10 and marked exhibits P1 to P5. Material objects MOI and MOII were identified during the trial. The defence chose not to adduce any evidence. After considering the evidence, the trial court found Kumaran guilty under Section 326 IPC and sentenced him to one year of simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 2,000. In case of default in payment of fine, he was to undergo an additional one month of simple imprisonment. Rs. 1,000 from the fine amount was ordered to be paid as compensation to the victim. 
• Dissatisfied with the trial court's verdict, Kumaran appealed to the Additional Sessions Court-III, Kozhikode (Crl. Appeal No. 235 of 2004). However, the appellate court dismissed his appeal and confirmed both the conviction and sentence. Subsequently, Kumaran filed this criminal revision petition (CRL.REV.PET NO. 1520 of 2006) before the Kerala High Court, challenging the judgments of both the trial court and the appellate court. 
• Initially, Kumaran was unrepresented when the revision petition came up for hearing. The High Court appointed Smt. Thushara K. as Amicus Curiae to assist the court. Later, Shri P.V. Anoop and Sri Phijo Pradeesh Philip appeared as counsel for the revision petitioner. 

What were the Court’s Observations? 

• The Court observed that Section 326 IPC specifies two categories of dangerous weapons: instruments designed for shooting, stabbing, or cutting (like guns, knives, swords), and any other instrument that is likely to cause death when used as a weapon of offence. 
• The Court noted that stones do not automatically constitute dangerous weapons and their classification depends on specific characteristics such as nature, size, sharpness, and potential to cause death, with certain types like flint and obsidian being commonly used as cutting tools. 
• The Court found that the prosecution failed to provide evidence regarding the stone's nature, size, or sharpness, and could not establish that it qualified as either a cutting instrument or a weapon likely to cause death under Section 326 IPC. 
•  The Court observed that the victim's injuries (circular contusion on cheek, bleeding, pain and swelling) did not fall under any of the eight categories of grievous hurt defined in Section 320 IPC, despite prosecution claims of facial fracture. 
• The Court concluded that the offence constituted simple hurt under Section 323 IPC rather than grievous hurt, and considering the petitioner's age (73 years), illness, and 19 years of prosecution ordeal, reduced the sentence to three days imprisonment already served plus a fine of Rs. 2,000. 

What is Section 118 of BNS ? 

• Before New Criminal Law it was cover under Section 326 of Indian Penal Code.  
• Section 118 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS) establishes a two-tier framework addressing both simple hurt and grievous hurt caused by dangerous weapons or means, with subsection (1) covering hurt and subsection (2) addressing grievous hurt using the same categories of dangerous instruments.  
• The section enumerates specific categories of dangerous weapons and means including instruments for shooting, stabbing, or cutting; instruments likely to cause death when used as weapons of offence; fire or heated substances; poison or corrosive substances; explosive substances; deleterious substances harmful to inhale, swallow, or receive into blood; and animals. 
• Unlike the IPC provisions, Section 118 BNS provides enhanced punishment with subsection (1) prescribing imprisonment up to three years or fine up to twenty thousand rupees or both for hurt, while subsection (2) mandates minimum one year imprisonment (extending to ten years) or life imprisonment plus fine for grievous hurt. 
• A significant departure from IPC Section 326 is the introduction of mandatory minimum punishment under subsection (2), which prescribes that imprisonment "shall not be less than one year," removing judicial discretion for sentences below this threshold in grievous hurt cases involving dangerous weapons. 
• Both subsections contain exception clauses referring to Section 122 of BNS, indicating that certain acts performed in good faith for the benefit of the person harmed or with consent (such as medical procedures) are excluded from the scope of this provision. 

What are the Essential Elements of Section 118 of BNS ? 

Section 118(1) - Voluntarily Causing Grievous Hurt by Dangerous Means 

Essential Elements: 

• Voluntary Act - The accused must have intentionally caused hurt to another person. 
• Use of Dangerous Weapon/Means - The hurt must be inflicted using:  
  • Sharp-edged or pointed instrument 
  • Fire or heated substance 
  • Poison or corrosive substance 
  • Explosive substance 
  • Machine or instrument (new addition) 
  • Animal (new addition in BNS) 
• Actual Hurt Caused - Physical pain, harm or injury must result 
• No Legal Justification - Act must not fall under exceptions in Section 122 

Section 118(2) - Voluntarily Causing Grievous Hurt by Dangerous Means 

Essential Elements: 

• Voluntary Act - Intentional commission of grievous hurt 
• Use of Dangerous Weapon/Means - Same dangerous means as listed in 118(1) 
• Grievous Nature of Injury - Must constitute grievous hurt under law:  
  • Emasculation 
  • Permanent privation of sight/hearing 
  • Destruction/permanent impairing of limb/joint 
  • Destruction/permanent impairing of brain/organ 
  • Permanent disfiguration of head/face 
• No Applicability of Exceptions - Must not fall under Section 122(2) exceptions 

What Constitutes a Dangerous Weapon? 

Legal Principles: 

The most important aspect is that courts don't maintain a fixed list of "dangerous" versus "non-dangerous" weapons. Instead, they examine each case individually, considering: 

• Manner of use: How the instrument was wielded 
• Actual injuries caused: The severity and nature of harm inflicted 
• Potential for harm: The weapon's capacity to cause death or grievous injury in the specific circumstances 
• Assault: The surrounding facts and circumstances 

Application: 

The approach means that everyday objects like kitchen knives, rods, or even stones can become "dangerous weapons" in the eyes of the law if used in a manner likely to cause death or grievous hurt. The courts focus on the weapon's potential and actual impact rather than its inherent nature. 

Essential Test: 

• The courts consistently States that the "likelihood to cause death" when used as a weapon of offense is the primary test, not the inherent nature of the object itself. 
• These statements establish that dangerousness is determined by usage of weapon  rather than weapon classification. 

Landmark Judgments: 

• Rakesh v. State of Delhi (2023): 
  • The Supreme Court established that dangerousness is determined by potential lethality and contextual usage rather than inherent weapon classification. 
• State of U.P. v. Indrajeet (2000): 
  • This precedent provides that everyday objects can become dangerous weapons depending on their deployment in criminal acts.