IMPORTANT POINT
It is sufficient to justify a conviction under Section 307 IPC, if there is present an intent coupled with some overtact in execution thereof, and 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.

Headnote:(i) Indian Penal Code, 1860-Section 307-Attempt to murder-It is not essential that bodily injury capable of causing death should have been inflicted-It is sufficient to justify a conviction u/s 307 if there is present an intent coupled with some overtact in execution thereof-Although nature of injury actually caused may often give considerable assistance in coming to a finding as to the intention of accused-Such intention may also be deduced from other circumstances-It is not correct to acquit an accused of the charge u/s 307 IPC merely because the injuries inflicted on the victim were in the nature of a simple hurt. (Para 9)
       (ii) Indian Penal Code, 1860-Section 307-Prosecution for offence under-Quarrel between parties after verbal exchange-A2 and A3 held short collar of PW3 and PW3 also held his collar-While pulling and pushing was going on, appellant brought a weapon and assaulted PW3 on his head, left hand and thigh-On receiving injuries PW3 fell down and he was taken to a hospital where he was treated-Order of acquittal recorded by trial Court holding that PWs 1, 3 and 6 to 9 were interested witnesses and PWs 1 and 8 resiled from their statements-Appeal against acquittal-High Court confirmed acquittal of A2 and A3 but held acquittal of A1 as not sustainable-Whether High Court was justified in convicting appellant by relying on evidence of PW3 and other eyewitnesses-(Yes).
       Held : The High Court has rightly acted on the evidence of PW-3 and other eyewitnesses. We find no infirmity in their evidence. Even though PWs-1 and 8 had resiled from the statements made during investigation to some extent, their evidence does not get wiped out in toto, as the evidence of such witnesses does not get washed off. Therefore, the only question which needs to be dealt with relates to the applicability of Section 307 IPC. The evidence of the eyewitnesses goes to show that they tried to intervene and save PW-3 from being assaulted by the appellant A-1, but he continued to assault PW-3. The first blow was on a vital part, that is on the temporal region. Even though other blows were on non-vital parts, that does not take away the rigor of Section 307 IPC. It is to be noted that in spite of interference by five persons, appellant continued to assault PW-3. This clearly indicates the intention of the appellant A-1. (Paras 7 & 8)

JUDGMENT

Arijit Pasayat, J.-The High Court of Karnataka found the appellant guilty of offences punishable under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the IPC ) and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years, by upsetting the order of acquittal recorded by the Trial Court. Three accused persons were acquitted, but the High Court did not interfere with the order of the acquittal of two other persons (A-2 and A-3), who are brothers of the appellant and faced trial with him.

2. Factual scenario giving rise to the present appeal is as follows:

On 1.5.90, between 11.00 to 11.30 a.m. PWs. 1, 3 and 6 to 9 had gone to a hotel to take tea. While they were taking tea, appellant (A-1) came there. The sister of the three accused persons was supposed to be the mistress of one Narasimha @ Dasi. When A-1 reached near PW-3 and the others, he was questioned by PW-3 as to why he and his brother had assaulted Narasimha. There was verbal exchange between P-3 and A-1. A-1 left the place. After taking tea, PW-3 and others went towards Vishvas Cut-piece Stores. Suddenly, three accused persons reached there, and quarreled with PW-3 and stated that it was none of his business, if Narasimha was assaulted. A-2 and A-3 held shirt collar of PW-3 and in turn PW-3 also held his collar. While pulling and pushing was going on, the appellant went out the brought a weapon (Machu) and assaulted PW-3 on his head, left hand and thigh. On receiving the injuries, PW-3 fell down and he was taken to the hospital where he was treated by doctor (PW-10). Oral complaint was lodged by Krishna (PW-1) which was reduced to writing by the officer-in-charge (PW-11). He visited the place of occurrence, and started investigation. On the next day, A-1 gave information about the concealment of weapon by him and he took PW-11 and other witnesses to the place where weapon of assault (Machu) was concealed in a pushcart. The same was seized. After completion of investigation charge sheet was placed. Accused persons pleaded innocence and faced trial.

3. The Trial Court did not believe the evidence of PWs. 1, 3 and 6 to 9 on the ground that being friendly with PW-3 were interested witnesses. It is noted that PWs 1 and 8 resiled from their statements made during investigation partially. Holding that the evidence of PW-3 was not very cogent and credible, the order of acquittal, as noted above, was recorded. The State of Karnataka filed an appeal before the High Court which by the impugned judgment confirmed the acquittal of A-2 and A-3 but held acquittal of A-1 was uncalled for, convicted him for the offences punishable under Section 307 IPC, and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for two years.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the High Court ought not to have interfered with the well-reasoned order of the Trial Court. Cogent reasons were given to discard the evidence of the injured witness and PWs 1, and 6 to 9 who claimed to be the eyewitnesses. Significantly, PWs. 1 and 8 did not support the prosecution version. That being so, the judgment of the High Court is vulnerable. The genesis of the controversy has not been established in view of the admission of PW-3 that he had not met Narasimha, and therefore the question of his asking A-1 about the difference between the accused and Narasimha is highly improbable. It is also submitted that offence under Section 307 IPC is not made out.

5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent-State submitted that the High Court noticed the infirmities in the conclusions arrived at by the Trial Court. It noticed that the cogent evidence of the injured witness and the eyewitnesses was discarded on unsustainable grounds. Therefore, there is no scope for interference with the impugned judgment.

6. It is to be noted that the Trial Court referred to the evidence of the eyewitnesses, and observed that only on the ground that the eyewitnesses were friendly with PW-3, their evidence was not to be discarded. It

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2004 Supreme(SC) 173

Cases Referred (1)