IMPORTANT POINT
To base conviction u/s 307 IPC Court has to see whether the act, irrespective of its result, was done with intention or knowledge and under the circumstances mentioned in the section.

Headnote:Indian Penal Code, 1860-Section 307-Attempt to murder-To justify conviction, it is not essential that bodily injury capable of causing death should have been inflicted-Court has to see whether act, irrespective of its results, was done with intention or knowledge and under circumstances mention in the section-It may not be correct to acquit accused of offence merely because injuries inflicted on victim were in the nature of simple hurt-Appellant had inflicted injuries by knife on victim and injury No. 1 was on vital part left supra orbital area and was grievous in nature-Conviction would not call for interference-Incident occurred when an altercation took place and there was no pre-meditation-Custodial sentence of five years would meet ends of justice instead of life imprisonment awarded by Courts below.
Held : It is sufficient to justify a conviction under Section 307 if there is present an intent coupled with some overt act in execution thereof. It is not essential that bodily injury capable of causing death should have been inflicted. If the injury inflicted has been with the avowed object or intention to cause death, the ritual nature, extent or character of the injury or whether such injury is sufficient to actually causing death are really factors which are wholly irrelevant for adjudging the culpability under Section 307 IPC. The Section makes a distinction between the act of the accused and its result, if any. The Court has to see whether the act, irrespective of its result, was done with the intention or knowledge and under circumstances mentioned in the Section. Therefore, it is not correct to acquit an accused of the charge under Section 307 IPC merely because the injuries inflicted on the victim were in the nature of a simple hurt. (Para 11)

JUDGMENT

Arijit Pasayat, J.-Leave granted.

2. Appellant along with four others faced trial for alleged commission of offence punishable under Section 302, 302 read with Section 120B, 307, 302 read with Section 109 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short the IPC ). The Trial Court found the appellant Hari Mohan Mandal and two other accused persons Chandra Mohan and Vijay to be guilty. Two others, namely, Gajadhar Mandal and Rameswar Mahto were acquitted. While Chandra Mohan was found guilty of offence punishable under Section 302 IPC, accused-appellant Hari Mohan Mandal and Vijay Mandal were found guilty of the offence punishable under Section 307 IPC. Each was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life.

3. In appeal, a Division Bench of the Jharkhand High Court dismissed the appeal so far as the accused Chandra Mohan and present appellant are concerned, but directed acquittal of the accused Vijay Mandal. The sentence as imposed by the Trial Court was maintained so far as the accused appellant is concerned.

4. Prosecution version as unfolded during trial in a nutshell is as follows :

5. At about 6.30 a.m. on the date of occurrence i.e. 12.2.1994, the informant along with his uncles, Narayan Mandal (hereinafter described as the deceased ) and Janardhan Mandal (PW-1) had gone for husking the paddy in the pounding mill of Sikandar Mahto, situated at Godda Pirpaiti Pitch Road. After their arrival, the three accused persons Chandra Mohan Mandal, Hari Mohan Mandal and Vijay Mandal also went there. They had kept their paddy bag at the Mill on the previous day. Both the parties entered into an altercation regarding the husking of their paddy first. The appellant, Hari Mohan Mandal forcibly put his paddy into the hauler. When deceased Narayan Mandal objected, all the accused persons abused him and the accused Chandra Mohan Mandal brought out a knife from his waist and gave 3-4 knife blows on his abdomen. On being injured deceased Naryana Mandal fell down. When Janardhan Mandal (PW-1) went to rescue him, then the accused Hari Mohan Mandal took the knife from Chandra Mohan Mandal and stabbed on his head and eye. He also fell down on being injured. Accused Vijay Mandal assaulted by throwing bricks hitting eye of Janardhan Mandal (PW-1). The bricks thrown at the informant Guddu Kumar (PW-5) by accused Vijay Mandal did not hit him. Thereafter, all the accused person fled away. Narayan Mandal died at the spot. The injured, Janardhan Mandal (PW-1) was sent to Sadar Hospital for treatment on a rickshaw. Rameshwar Mahto, father of mill owner, Sikandar Mahto and Joginder Mahto (PW-9) saw the alleged occurrence. On alarm, the villagers assembled there. The informant (PW-5) put the dead body of Narayan Mandal on a trolley with the help of others. Fard beyan (Ext. 4) of the informant Guddu Kumar Mandal (PW-5) was recorded by S.I., R.K. Bharamchari (PW-11) Officer-in-charge, Godda P.S. on 12.2.1994 at 9.20 a.m. at the P.O. Village Punasia, P.S. Godda Town. After investigation charge-sheet under Sections 302, 307 IPC was submitted. Supplementary charge-sheet under Sections 302, 307, 109/34 IPC was submitted against Gajadhar Mandal and Rameshwar Mahto, who were acquitted by the Trial Court.

5. In order to bring home the accusations 13 witnesses were examined by the prosecution. The Trial Court found the evidence of injured A-1 and the informant Guddu Kumar (PW-5) to be cogent and credible. Placing reliance on their evidence, the Trial Court found 3 accused persons guilty but found that the prosecution has not established its case so far as the co-accused Gajadhar Mandal and Rameshwar Mahto are concerned and accordingly directed their acquittal.

6. During trial and in appeal, the evidence of the eyewitnesses were questioned on the ground of witnesses being partisan and the alleged suppression of the genesis of the dispute. The Trial Court and the High Court did not accept the stand and found the evidence to be cogent. Strong reliance was placed on the evid

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2004 Supreme(SC) 350

IMPORTANT POINTTo base conviction u/s 307 IPC Court has to see whether the act, irrespective of its result, was done with intention or knowledge and under the circumstances mentioned in the section.

Cases Referred (3)

IMPORTANT POINT
To base conviction u/s 307 IPC Court has to see whether the act, irrespective of its result, was done with intention or knowledge and under the circumstances mentioned in the section.