Back
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Ananya Bandyopadhyay, J.
Jamser Ali & Anr. – Appellant
Versus
The State – Respondent
C.R.A. 222 of 2001
Decided On : 07-05-2024
Criminal - Attempt to Murder - IPC Sections 307, 326 - The court interpreted the provisions of Sections 307 and 326 of the IPC, emphasizing the necessity of proving intention to kill for a conviction under Section 307, leading to a modification of the conviction to Section 326.
Fact of the Case:
The case involves an assault on Abiar Rahaman by multiple accused, resulting in serious injuries. The prosecution charged the accused under Sections 307/34 of the IPC, claiming an attempt to murder, while the defense argued inconsistencies in witness testimonies and lack of intent.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that while the assault occurred, the prosecution failed to establish the necessary intent to kill required for a conviction under Section 307. The injuries were serious but not sufficient to prove an attempt to murder, leading to a conviction under Section 326 instead.
Issues: Whether the accused had the intention to commit murder under Section 307 of the IPC or if the injuries sustained warranted a lesser charge under Section 326.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the intention to kill must be established for a conviction under Section 307, and since the evidence did not support this, the conviction was modified to Section 326, which addresses causing grievous hurt.
Result: The conviction was modified from Section 307 to Section 326, with the sentence reduced from seven years to three years.
JUDGMENT :
Ananya Bandyopadhyay, J.
1. This criminal appeal is preferred against the judgment and order of conviction dated 03.05.2001 passed by the Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Cooch Behar in Sessions Trial No. 4(4) of 2000 arising out of Sessions Case No. 111 of 1996 under Sections 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced the appellants for seven (7) years of rigorous imprisonment under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code and also to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-in default further one (1) year of rigorous imprisonment.
2. The prosecution case precisely stated on 26.08.1994, Abiar Rahaman, fourth son of the de-facto complainant, Md. Dasiruddin Mia went to the land of Jagadish Ch. Kar in the morning for cultivating the same as hired labour. At about 9 a.m. Abiar Rahaman returned to his house and after breakfast he proceeded to resume his work as aforesaid. As he reached near the house of Ratneswar Singh, the accused persons namely Jamser Ali, armed with battam, Ichhamuddin, Jabed, Safiar Rahaman, Ramen and Jiten being armed with bamboo stick wrongfully restrained Abiar. Jamser Ali assaulted Abiar on his head from behind and as a result Abiar sustained bleeding injury. Thereafter, rest of the accused persons mercilessly assaulted Abiar Rahaman. At that time one Rina Sultana rushed to the spot and raised alarm. Villagers assembled and Abiar Rahaman was taken to Ghoksadanga Police Station wherefrom he was sent to Ghoksadanga P.H.C.
3. On the basis of the written complaint of de-facto complainant Dasiruddin Mia Ghoksadanga P.S. Case No. 36 of 1994 was instituted dated 26.08.1994 under Sections 341/325 of the Indian Penal Code.
4. After completion of investigation the Investigating Officer submitted the charge-sheet under Sections 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code against all the accused persons. Charges were framed to which the accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
5. In order to prove its case the prosecution examined 14 witnesses and exhibited certain documents.
6. The Learned Advocate for the appellants submitted that:
ii. The Learned Sessions Judge ought to have hold that no occurrence took place on the same date.
iii. The appellant Safiar Rahaman happened to be a son of the de-facto complainant and as such the brother of the injured. No motive had been assigned by the prosecution for commission of the alleged offence.
iv. PW-2, PW-3, PW-5, PW-7 were closely related to each other and admittedly the injured was the foster son of PW-3 and their evidence ought to have been scrutinized carefully.
v. The injured though conscious after the occurrence could not name any of the appellants before the doctors.
vi. Admittedly PW-4 was a witness after occurrence and according to him PW-3 went to the spot after him, and he heard about the occurrence from the injured which was not the evidence of PW-9, injured.
vii. According to PW-8 who claimed to be an eyewitness no female member was present at the spot i.e. falsifying the evidence of PW2 and this witness i.e., PW-8 was related to PW-3 and such to PW-9 i.e. injured.
viii. Though about 50 to 60 persons were present at the spot only related witnesses were produced and independent witnesses were left out which raised suspicion of the prosecution story.
ix. It was alleged that the appellant/accused Jamser did not strike the injured from behind. As such PW-9, i.e. injured, could not see Jamser.
x. The evidence of the witnesses were contradictory and inconsistent.
xi. Even the evidence of the doctors who found incised wound on the head of the injured was inconsistent with the allegation of assaulting with buttom in which case lacerated wound was expected.
xii. The Learned Trial Judge acquitted the other accused persons giving them benefit of doubt which ground was also available to the appellant.
xiii. According to Learned Judge, he acquitted
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 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 main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation and application of different sections of IPC, specifically Section 307, Section 326, and Section 448, in determining the appella....
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....
The essential ingredients for the offence under Section 307 of IPC, including the intention of the accused and the nature of the act, are crucial in determining guilt.
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
