IMPORTANT POINT
Attempt to murder – Non-conviction under Section 307, IPC on the premise only that simple injury was inflicted does not follow as a matter of course.

JUDGMENT :

Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J.

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. Leave granted.

3. The present appeal is directed against the Final Order and Judgment dated 06.08.2021 (hereinafter referred to as the “Impugned Judgment”) passed by the High Court of Judicature at Madras (hereinafter referred to as the “High Court”) in Criminal Appeal No.228 of 2015, whereby the appeal filed by the appellants against their conviction by the Trial Court under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as the “IPC”) and imposition of fine of Rs.1000/-each has been confirmed, but the sentence of 10 years Rigorous Imprisonment has been reduced to 5 years Rigorous Imprisonment.

THE FACTUAL PRISM:

4. The appellants along with three others were named by the Complainant in First Information Report No.409/12 dated 15.09.2012 under Sections 294(b), 323, 324, 452 and 307 read with 109 of the IPC accusing them of a conspiracy to cause the death of the Complainant. Upon trial, the Accused Nos.1, 2 and 5 were acquitted and the appellants, who were Accused Nos.3 and 4 were convicted under Section 307, IPC and sentenced to 10 years’ Rigorous Imprisonment and fined Rs.1000/-each. The appeal preferred by the appellants before the High Court did not succeed in full, and only resulted in the sentence of Rigorous Imprisonment being reduced from 10 years to 5 years. This gives rise to the present appeal.

SUBMISSIONS BY THE APPELLANTS:

5. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the case of the prosecution is that there was previous enmity between the Complainant-Prakash alias Chinnaraj/PW1 and Accused No.1. He detailed the prosecution story as follows. It was submitted that PW1 and Accused No.1 had a dispute concerning a lane between their houses. A civil case in such respect was also pending between them. During the pendency of the suit, an Advocate Commissioner was appointed through the Court, who measured the land in dispute and allotted portions to Accused No.1 and PW1. PW1 had put up fencing within the portion allotted to him, and on account of this, Accused No.1 used to quarrel with him. Fifteen days prior to the incident, Accused No.1 had removed the fencing and again picked up a quarrel with PW1 and threatened to kill him. Pursuant thereto, Accused No.1 conspired with the Accused Nos. 2, 3, 4 and 5 to put an end to the life of PW1. Consequently, on 15.09.2012, while PW1 was in his grocery shop, on the instigation of Accused No.1, Accused Nos.2 and 5 along with the appellants (Accused Nos.3 and 4) reached the shop. Accused No.2 is stated to have abused PW1 in filthy and obscene language and beaten him with force on his cheek by hand. The appellants tried to attack PW1 with a knife, but PW1 escaped from their attack and caught hold of the appellants’ hands, as a result of which, sustained abrasion injuries on his right shoulder and left thumb. On hearing this alarm, PW2-Indirani (PW1’s mother) came to his rescue and at that time, the Accused No.5 attacked her with a cold drink bottle on her back, causing a simple injury. Meanwhile, the neighbours came to the scene of occurrence and tried to save PW1 and on seeing them, the Accused Nos.2 and 5 escaped in an auto-rickshaw. The appellants were caught by the villagers and were tied to a streetlamp post. Thereafter, they were produced before the respondent-police by the villagers.

6. However, it was pointed out that the allegations against all the accused being more or less similar in nature, the appellants could not have been convicted under Section 307, IPC as the doctor (PW13) itself found the injuries to be simple in nature and not on any vital part of the body. Moreover, it was submitted that there was no intention to kill; neither there were repeated blows, nor was it pre-planned, when admittedly there was a civil suit pending between Accused No.1 and PW1. It was submitted that even the prosecution story would indicate that a quarrel had arisen between the Accused No.1 and