PATNA HIGH COURT
Banerji, J.
Sk.Mansuri Nizamuddin
Versus
State Of Bihar
Criminal Appeal No. 471 of 1954 ;
Decided On : DECEMBER 14, 1954
ATTEMPT TO MURDER - SECTION 307, INDIAN PENAL CODE - INTENTION TO CAUSE DEATH - MENS REA - RECKLESSNESS - DISTINCTION BETWEEN RASHNESS, NEGLIGENCE AND RECKLESSNESS - INTERPRETATION OF SECTION 307, INDIAN PENAL CODE - APPLICATION TO FACTS OF CASE - CONVICTION UNDER SECTION 307, INDIAN PENAL CODE, SET ASIDE - CONVICTION UNDER SECTION 19(F), INDIAN ARMS ACT, MAINTAINED.
Fact of the Case:
The accused was convicted under Section 307, Indian Penal Code (IPC), for attempting to murder three witnesses by firing a pistol at them. He was also convicted under Section 19(f), Arms Act, for possessing an unlicensed pistol and cartridges. The accused claimed that he was falsely implicated and that the witnesses had planted the pistol and cartridges on him after robbing him of Rs. 700.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the prosecution witnesses were telling the truth and that the accused was in possession of an unlicensed pistol and cartridges. However, the court held that the evidence did not establish that the accused had the intention to cause death or that he knew that his act of firing would cause death to any of the villagers. The court distinguished between rashness, negligence, and recklessness and held that the accused's act of firing was reckless but not intentional.
Issues: 1. Whether the accused had the intention to cause death or knew that his act of firing would cause death to any of the villagers. 2. Whether the accused's act of firing was rash, negligent, or reckless.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the evidence did not establish that the accused had the intention to cause death or that he knew that his act of firing would cause death to any of the villagers. The court relied on the fact that the accused fired his pistol from a distance of about 100 yards and that none of the villagers were injured, despite the fact that they were pursuing him from close quarters. 2. The court distinguished between rashness, negligence, and recklessness and held that the accused's act of firing was reckless but not intentional. The court explained that recklessness involves a conscious disregard of the consequences of one's actions, while intention requires a specific desire to bring about a particular result.
Final Decision: The court set aside the conviction under Section 307, IPC, but maintained the conviction under Section 19(f), Arms Act.
Banerji, J.
1. The appellant has been convicted under Sec.307, I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years by Mr. F. Khan, a Magistrate, with powers under Sec.30, Cr. P.C. He has, also, been convicted under Section 19(f), Arms Act, and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year with the direction that the two sentences should run concurrently.
2. On 7-2-1954, which was a Sunday, Kashinath Tripathi (P.W. 2), Kameshwar Tewari (P.W. 3) and Maldeo Tewari (P.W. 4) had gone to a place called Chianki in the district of Palamau to cut grass. They saw the accused sitting on a bundle-and either reading or singing with reference to a cinema-book. The three witnesses, on seeing a stranger in that locality, accosted him and he replied that he had come there to arrange a marriage of his sister and then enquired if there was a rich Brahman in the village who would be desirous of entering into a marriage negotiation. As this man, the accused, had a book, which he was reading, which happened to be in Urdu, the witnesses suspected that he was telling a lie and that, most probably he was not a Hindu but was a Muhammadan. P.W. 1 then saw something projecting from the bundle which appeared to him like the barrel of a pistol. He drew the attention of his companions and they, also, saw the barrel-end of the pistol sticking out of the bundle. The accused, on being further questioned, stood up, took out the pistol and pointed the same to these three witnesses. The witnesses stepped back and, when they were at some distance, the accused fired several rounds and then started running away from the spot. The three witnesses commenced chasing him and raised a hue and cry which drew the attention of other villagers and they including Sheonandan Singh (P.W. 5) and Nagina Singh (P.W. 6), joined in the chase and, subsequently, at a distance of two miles from Chianki in village Bhusahi, the accused was arrested and, because he was struggling, he was assaulted with lathis by the villagers. While running away, the accused threw away two chhuras with scabbards (Exs. IV and IV/1), a sendhmarni (Ex.- III) and some other articles in order to facilitate his flight. When he was, at last, overpowered, a search of his person was taken by the villagers and a pistol and several live cartridges were recovered. The villagers, also, recovered two empty cartridges which were found on the way from Chianki and they produced the accused before R.N. Dutta (P.W. 7), Sub-Inspector of police of Daltonganj, at 5-30 P.M. They produced also the pistol, the cartridges and the other articles, which the accused had thrown away while he was being chased by the villagers. The sub-Inspector noticed that the pistol was giving out fresh smell of gun powder and its butt was in a damaged condition. He went to Bhusahi, where the accused was said to have been arrested and inspected the field belonging to one Ramkhelawan Singh. It was in this field that the accused is said to have been ultimately overpowered and arrested by the villagers. The Sub-Inspector found blood stains on some clods of earth in this field and, also found the wooden piece which fitted with the butt of the pistol produced by the villagers at the police station. He sent the firearm and the ammunition to the Police Laboratory Arms expert in a sealed packet through Constable Lachhmi Narain Choudhary (P.W. 13) and obtained sanction of the Deputy Commissioner of Palamau for the prosecution of the accused under Sec.19 (f), Indian Arms Act.
The Fire Anns Expert of the Government, to whom the firearm and the ammunition were sent is Babu Gurupada Bhattacharaya (P.W. 15). According to him, the pistol (Ext. V) was a country-made one and the cartridge cases (Exs. VI and VI/1) and the misfired cartridge (Ex. VI/3) had been fired or attempted to be fired from the pistol (Ex. V). The pistol was in a perfect working order and could effectively be used as a firearm. The barrel of the pistol was exam
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.