Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
Bharat P. Deshpande, J.
Sanjay Gaonkar - Appellant
Versus
State - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 33 of 2017
Decided On : 27-07-2023
SEC. 307 IPC - ATTEMPT TO MURDER - IPC SECTIONS 307, 325 - The court discussed the provisions of Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), which pertains to the attempt to murder, and Section 325, which deals with voluntarily causing grievous hurt. The court interpreted the intention and knowledge required for a conviction under Section 307, concluding that the accused did not possess the requisite intention to kill, as the assault was not carried out with a dangerous weapon and did not indicate a clear intent to cause death. The court ultimately modified the conviction from Section 307 to Section 325, reflecting the nature of the injuries inflicted and the circumstances of the case.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant-accused was convicted for assaulting the victim, Ms. Shakuntala, with a stone, causing grievous injuries. The incident occurred after the victim refused to marry the accused, who was jobless and an alcoholic. The prosecution presented multiple witnesses, including the victim, who testified about the assault, while the accused claimed the case was false due to a prior love affair.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the prosecution had established the occurrence of the assault and the grievous nature of the injuries. However, it determined that the evidence did not support a conviction for attempted murder under Section 307 IPC, as the accused lacked the intention to kill.
Issues: Whether the prosecution proved that the accused assaulted the victim with the intention to kill, thereby justifying a conviction under Section 307 IPC.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that for a conviction under Section 307 IPC, the prosecution must demonstrate the accused's intention and knowledge to cause death. The evidence indicated that the accused's actions were not aimed at killing but rather at inflicting injury, leading to the conclusion that the appropriate charge was under Section 325 IPC instead.
Final Decision: The appeal was partly allowed, modifying the conviction from Section 307 IPC to Section 325 IPC, sentencing the accused to two years of imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 20,000, with the fine to be paid to the victim as compensation.
JUDGMENT/ORDER
1. The Appellant-Accused challenges the impugned judgment and conviction dtd. 2/6/2017 arising out of Sessions Case No. 20 of 2011, whereby the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Panaji found the Appellant-Accused guilty for the offence punishable under Sec. 307 of IPC and sentenced him to suffer imprisonment for a period of five years and to pay a fine of Rs.20, 000.00.
2. Heard Mr. Dhaval Zaveri, learned Counsel for the Appellant-Accused and Mr. Gaurish Nagvenker, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.
3. With the assistance of the learned Counsel for the respective parties, I have perused the entire record and more particularly, the impugned judgment.
4. The point for determination is as under:
5. In a nutshell, it is the case of the Prosecution that on 29/12/2010 between 16:00 to 17:00 hours at Zambliche Temb, Pali, Sattari, Goa, the accused assaulted the complainant's daughter, Ms. Shakuntala @ Sakhu with stone and hit on her face causing grievous injuries to her eye, head and thereby attempting to kill her.
6. During the trial, 16 witnesses were examined. Though, initially, it was claimed that there was one eyewitness, he did not support the Prosecution's case. The victim deposed and was cross examined at length. The Doctors who treated the victim were also examined and through them, respective hurt certificates and final medical certificates have been proved in evidence. The complaint was lodged by Mr. Ganesh, PW-1/father of the victim. From the contents of the complaint produced through PW-1, the relationship between the complainant, victim and the accused could be spelt out so as to find out the intention or the knowledge on the part of the accused while inflicting the injuries on the victim.
7. The complaint filed on 29/12/2010 by Ganesh, PW-1 reveals that he along with his wife, daughters and sons are residing at Deulwada, Pali, Sattari, Goa. The accused is also a resident of the same place. The complainant became aware five months prior to the date of the incident that his daughter Sakhu was having a love relationship with their neighbour/accused. The accused started insisting to get married to Sakhu, however, the complainant and his family members were opposing the same as the accused was not employed, was addicted to liquor and was an irresponsible person. Even the victim refused to marry the accused and discontinued her relationship with him. Due to such refusal and frustration, the accused started abusing the complainant and his family members under the influence of alcohol. The accused also started harassing the victim and was pressurising her to continue the relationship with him.
8. The complaint further disclosed that on 29/12/2010, the complainant along with his wife, elder daughter-Anju and the victim went to their paddy field at Panas Sare, Thane, Sattari, Goa. At around 16:00 hours, he asked the victim to return home to milk the cows. Accordingly, she left the paddy field. At around 17:30 hours, the complainant's younger son-Mahesh came to the paddy field and informed them that the victim was assaulted by the accused at Zambliche Temb at Pali on the pathway while she was returning home and such an incident was witnessed by their neighbour's wife. The complaint further disclosed that the accused caught hold of the hair of the victim and smashed her head on a rough surface and hit a stone on her head. When she shouted, the accused ran away from the spot.
9. Admittedly, PW-1 being the complainant was not present at the spot and therefore, what he has stated is on the basis of the information given to him by his son-Mahesh.
10. PW-4, Anju Ganesh is the sister of the victim, who also supported the version of the complainant and claimed that the victim left the paddy field at around 4:00 p.m. to milk the cows at their residence. At around 5:15 p.m., her brother- Mahesh came and i
The court established that the intention to kill is a critical element for a conviction under Section 307 IPC, and in the absence of such intent, a lesser charge under Section 325 IPC for grievous hu....
The intent to commit murder must be proven beyond reasonable doubt, and in this case, it was established that the act fell under grievous hurt.
The court clarified that conviction under IPC Section 307 can be established not just through harm caused but also through the intent of the accused, underlined by consistent eyewitness accounts.
The distinction between intention and knowledge is crucial in culpable homicide cases, affecting the applicability of Section 304 IPC.
The court established that intention and knowledge are critical in determining the applicability of Sections 307 and 326 IPC in cases of grievous hurt and attempted murder.
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 determined that the Appellant's actions lacked intent to kill, leading to a conviction under Section 304 Part-II instead of Section 302.
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
