Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2007 Supreme(SC) 1303

S.B.SINHA, HARJIT SINGH BEDI
Bishan Singh – Appellant
Versus
State – Respondent

Judgement Key Points

Key Points: - The judgment states that existence of an intention to kill is sine qua non of conviction under Section 308 IPC, and without such evidence, conviction cannot be based solely on FIR and weapons carried (paras referenced: p_1, p_11, p_12). - The Court held that the offence fell under Sections 323 and 325 IPC, not 308/149, and accordingly allowed the appeal to the extent of changing the conviction (paras referenced: p_2, p_12, p_18, p_20, p_23, p_11). - The punishment was modified to a fine with alternative simple imprisonment, and a portion of the fine could be paid to the informant; appellants in custody were to be released subject to conditions (paras referenced: p_14, p_15, p_18).

What is the required element of intention under Section 308 IPC as clarified in this case?

What offences do the High Court and Supreme Court conclude the accused actually committed instead of 308 IPC?

judgment

S.B. SINHA, J. —

1.Leave granted.

2.Bishan Singh son of Bachchi Singh and Govind Ballabh son of Krishnanand, the two surviving accused, who were tried and convicted for commission of an offence under Sections 147 and 308/149 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) are before us; the other four accused, namely, Arjun Singh, Shivraj, Govind Singh and Bhairav Dutt having expired.

3.One Harish Bhatt was the complainant. On 30.09.1984 at about 06.30 p.m. when he was going towards his village, the accused persons allegedly assaulted him with lathis and took out a sum of Rs.400/- from his pocket. His brother Ghanshyam Dutt Bhatt intervened. It was alleged that the accused persons were inimically disposed of towards the injured and had attacked him with an intention to cause his death. The injuries suffered by Harish Bhatt as per the injury report prepared by Dr. J.S. Pangti (PW-6) are as under :

“1.Lacerated wound 3 cm x 1 cm on scalp at right parietal region, 14 cm above the right eye-brow. Scalp deep. Fresh bleeding present.

2.Lacerated wound 5 cm x = cm x scalp deep on scalp, at right parietal area, 19 cm above the right eye-brow.

3.Lacerated wound 3 cm x < cm x skin deep, 4 cm above the r

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2007 Supreme(SC) 1303

S.B.SINHA, HARJIT SINGH BEDIBishan Singh – AppellantVersusState – Respondent

What is the required element of intention under Section 308 IPC as clarified in this case?

What offences do the High Court and Supreme Court conclude the accused actually committed instead of 308 IPC?

S.B.SINHA, HARJIT SINGH BEDI
Bishan Singh – Appellant
Versus
State – Respondent