Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Tirthankar Ghosh, J.
Md. Illiyas @ Illu And Another - Appellant
Versus
State Of West Bengal - Respondent
CRA 146 of 2019 With IA No. CRAN 3 of 2020 & (Old No. CRAN 498 of 2020)
Decided On : 10-08-2022
Section 307/34 of Indian Penal Code - Attempt to commit murder and possession of firearms - Section 25(1B)(a) of the Arms Act - [Section 307/34, Section 25(1B)(a)] - The court considered the evidence and medical reports and converted the conviction from Section 307 to Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code, reducing the sentence to five years Rigorous Imprisonment.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved an incident where the appellants attempted to commit murder and were in possession of firearms, leading to injuries sustained by the victim. The prosecution relied on witness testimonies and medical reports to prove the case.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that while the accused intended to inflict injury, the evidence suggested that their intention was not to kill the victim. The conviction was therefore converted from Section 307 to Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code, and the sentence was reduced to five years Rigorous Imprisonment.
Issues: The issues revolved around the intention of the accused, the reliability of witness testimonies, and the severity of the charges brought against the appellants.
Ratio Decidendi: The court considered the discrepancy between the evidence and the medical reports, leading to the conclusion that the intention of the accused was to inflict injury rather than to commit murder.
Final Decision: The appeal was partly allowed, and the conviction was converted from Section 307 to Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code, with the sentence reduced to five years Rigorous Imprisonment.
JUDGMENT
Tirthankar Ghosh, J. - The present appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 29.01.2019 and 30.01.2019 passed by the Learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, 1st Court, Sealdah, South 24 Parganas, in Sessions Trial No. 4 (9)/2017 arising out of Entally Police Station Case No. 233 dated 02.07.2017 wherein the learned Trial Court was pleased to convict the appellants under Section 307/34 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced both of them to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 7 years and fine of Rs.20,000/- in default to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 3 months more.
2. Entally Police Station Case no. 233/2017 dated 02.07.2017 was registered for investigation under Section 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 25(1B)(a) of the Arms Act on the basis of a statement of Razia Begum recorded by A.K. Choudhury, Sub-Inspector of Police. Razia Bibi (hereinafter referred to as 'the complainant') stated that on 02.07.2017 at about 05.00 pm while his son Sk Amirudding was sitting in front of the gate of Loreto School beside Motijheel Bridge, two local boys namely Md. Illiyas @ Illu and his brother-in-law Sk Saheb rushed towards him and by referring to a past dispute threatened the victim/injured by stating that he was exceeding his limit and tried to project himself as a hero. Immediately thereafter they started assaulting the complainant's son and when he protested the accused Illu took out a small gun from his pocket and said that he would kill him. Seeing such incident the complainant rushed towards his son when Sk Saheb pushed her back and by taking out a chopper he attempted to injure the throat of his son.
3. As the complainant's son shifted his body he was hit on his shoulder and thereafter repeated injuries were inflicted on his arms and wrist. The complainant's son was bleeding profusely, local people thereafter rushed when the accused persons fled away. The husband of the complainant had taken her son to hospital and she approached the police station for seeking help.
4. The Investigating Agency on conclusion of investigation submitted charge-sheet under Section 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 25 (1B)(a) of the Arms Act. After the supply of the documents under Section 207 of the Code of Criminal Procedure the case was committed to the Court of Sessions and finally to the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, 1st Court, Sealdah, South 24 Parganas and on or about 13th November, 2017 charge was framed against both the accused persons as follows:
5.'First- That you on or about 02.07.2017 at about 17.00 hrs beside Motijheel Bridge near Loretto School gate in furtherance of your common intention attempted to commit murder the son of the complainant by brandishing a firearms and assaulted him with a chopper as a result of which the injured sustained bleeding injury on his person and that you thereby committed the offence punishable u/sec. 307/34 of the I.P.C. and within the cognizance of this Court.
Secondly - That you on or about 02.07.2017 at about 17.00 hrs beside Motijheel Bridge near Loretto school gate were in possession of firearms which is contravention of Arms Act and that you thereby committed the offence punishable u/sec. 25(1B)(a) of the Arms Act and within the cognizance of this Court.'
5. The charge was thereafter read over to the accused persons/appellants to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
6. Prosecution in order to prove its case relied upon PW1, Rajia Begum, complainant, mother of the injured/victim; PW2 Sk. Amiruddin, victim/injured; PW3 Md. Sarib, eye-witness; PW5, Md. Nisar, seizure witness; PW6, Md. Tinku Alam, seizure witness; PW7, Parvez Alam, seizure list witness; PW8, Md. Kamal, a local resident; PW9, Subhendhu Modak, Arms Expert; PW10, Dr. Prasanta Kumar Sinha, doctor who treated PW2 and PW11, Investigating Officer of the case.
7. The prosecution also relied upon 7 documents which included Ext.1, Seizure List d
The central legal point established in the judgment is the consideration of evidence and medical reports to determine the intention of the accused, leading to the conversion of the conviction and the....
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.
Point of law : Conviction under section 307 set aside - Simple injuries - No injury was dangerous to life.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the significance of consistent witness statements and the requirement for the prosecution to explain injuries sustained by the accused.
The prosecution failed to prove the charges of attempted murder and grievous hurt due to lack of evidence regarding intent and the nature of injuries.
Violation of procedural rules in SC & ST Act investigations vitiates trial outcomes; the conviction under lesser charges can be maintained despite initial assault intensity.
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 main legal point established in the judgment is the assessment of evidence to determine the nature of the offences and the intention of the accused, as well as the consideration of the accused's ....
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
