Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
SANJAY KAROL, NONGMEIKAPAM KOTISWAR SINGH, JJ.
Roshan Lal – Appellant
Versus
The State of Haryana and Another – Respondents
Criminal Appeal No. 2207 of 2011, Criminal Appeal No. 2209 of 2011, Criminal Appeal No. 2210 of 2011
Decided On : 22-05-2026
Key Points: - The court discusses the essential elements required to convict under Section 307 IPC, focusing on intention/knowledge to commit murder and an overt act, not merely the nature of injury (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) . - The court holds that conviction under Section 307 IPC cannot be sustained where the prosecution fails to prove the requisite intention or knowledge, even if grievous injuries occurred; the appropriate outcome may be a conviction under Section 325 IPC if grievous hurt is proven in furtherance of common intent (!) (!) (!) . - The court analyzes the significance of surrounding circumstances, heat of the moment, and lack of premeditation to determine intent, and notes that ordinary lathi injuries may not indicate intent to kill in the absence of premeditation (!) (!) (!) . - The court alters the conviction from 307 read with 34 to 325 read with 34 IPC based on the evidence, and prescribes sentence accordingly with fines and possible default imprisonment (!) (!) (!) . - The judgment references applicable legal principles for interference in concurrent findings and outlines the limited grounds for this Court to reappraise evidence in criminal appeals by special leave (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) . - The court relies on eye-witness testimony and medical evidence to establish grievous hurt and its relation to Section 320 IPC clauses Seventhly and Eighthly (!) (!) . - The court details the procedural history: trial court conviction, High Court affirmation, and subsequent appellate modification of charges and sentencing (!) (!) (!) (!) . - The court provides the permissible scope of inference for intention from circumstances and weapon/weapons used, and the standards for evaluating such in Section 307 cases (!) (!) (!) (!) - (!) .
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. summary of trial history, previous judgments, and allegations of witness intimidation. (Para 1 , 13 , 14 , 16 , 17) |
| 2. principles for judicial interference in concurrent findings of lower courts. (Para 2 , 3) |
| 3. factual narrative including medical evaluation and initial police investigation details. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11) |
| 4. application of evidentiary analysis to evaluate absence of required mens rea for murder. (Para 12 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 33 , 34 , 35) |
| 5. core contentions and arguments presented by appellants and respondents. (Para 15 , 22 , 23) |
| 6. legal requirements and intent interpretation for section 307 ipc convictions. (Para 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 31 , 32) |
| 7. classification of grievous hurt under section 325 ipc due to established injury severity. (Para 36 , 37 , 38) |
| 8. sentencing based on time already served and court-ordered financial compensation. (Para 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43) |
JUDGMENT :
NONGMEIKAPAM KOTISWAR SINGH, J.
1. The present three appeals, Criminal Appeal Nos.2207/2011, 2209/2011 and 2210/2011 have been preferred against the common judgment and order dated 16.08.2010 passed by the High Court of Punjab & Haryana in CRA No. 801-SB of 2002 as well as CRA No. 802-SB of 2002, dismissing the appeals filed by the appellants herein, upholding the conviction and sentence imposed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Rewari, (Trial Court), vide its judgment dated 02.05.2002 in Sessions Case No. 13/2000 in relation with FIR No. 116 dated 06.06.2000, initially under Sections 323/325/506 IPC, with Section 307 added later; trial charge under Sections 307/506 read with Section 34 .
2. At the outset, it is apposite to recall the principles applicable when dealing with concurrent findings of the courts below, for which we may refer to the decision in Dalbir Kaur and Others vs. State of Punjab, (1976) 4 SCC 158, wherein it was held as below:
(1) that this Court would not interfere with the concurrent finding of fact based on pure appreciation of evidence even if it were to take a different view on the evidence;
(2) that the Court will not normally enter into a re-appraisement or review of the evidence, unless the assessment of the High Court is vitiated by an error of law or procedure or is based on error of record, misreading of evidence or is inconsistent with the evidence, for instance, where the ocular evidence is totally inconsistent with the medical evidence and so on;
(3) that the Court would not enter into credibility of the evidence with a view to substitute its own opinion for that of the High Court;
(4) that the Court would interfere where the High Court has arrived at a finding of fact in disregard of a judicial process, principles of natural justice or a fair hearing or has acted in violation of a mandatory provision of law or procedure resulting in serious prejudice or injustice to the accused;
(5) this Court might also interfere where on the proved facts wrong inferences of law have been drawn or where the conclusions of the High Court are manifestly perverse and based on no evidence.”
It is very difficult to lay down a rule of universal application, but the principles mentioned above and those adumbrated in the authorities of this Court cited supra provide sufficient guidelines for this Court to decide criminal appeals by special leave. Thus, in a criminal appeal by special leave, this Court at the hearing examines the evidence and the judgment of the High Court with the limited purpose of determining whether or not the High Court has followed the principles enunciated above. Where the Court finds that the High Court has committed no violation of the various principles laid down by this Court and has made a correct approach and has not ignored or overlooked striking features in the evidence which demolish the prosecution case, the findings of fact arrive
A conviction for attempt to murder requires independent proof of murderous mens rea, which cannot be presumed solely from the severity of injuries. When an assault is spontaneous and lacks evidence o....
Point of law: It is evident that proof of grievous or life-threatening hurt is not a sine qua non for the offence under Section 307 I.P.C. The intention of the accused can be ascertained from the act....
The court clarified that a conviction for attempted murder requires clear evidence of intent, which was lacking, thus warranting a lesser charge.
The court clarified that for a conviction under section 307 IPC, there must be clear evidence of intent to kill, which was not established in this case.
The court clarified that for a conviction under Section 307 IPC, the prosecution must prove the accused's intention to kill, which was not established in this case.
The intention to cause death and the sufficiency of the acts to cause death in the ordinary course of nature are essential elements of the offense of attempt to murder under Section 307 of the IPC. C....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the intention of the accused in a criminal act may be deduced from circumstances and the nature of injuries caused, and it is not essential th....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
