Back
2022 Supreme(Chh) 300
IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
SANJAY K. AGRAWAL, SACHIN SINGH RAJPUT, JJ.
Pareshwar Satnami, S/o Eyoram Satnami – Appellant
Versus
State of Chhattisgarh, Through the District Magistrate, Raigarh, District-Raigarh (C.G.) -
Respondent
Criminal Appeal No.188 of 2012
Decided on : 26-07-2022
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mrs. Indira Tripathi, Advocate.
For the Respondent:Mr. Sudeep Verma, Deputy Govt. Advocate
Headnote:
Section 307 IPC - Attempt to Murder - Summary of Acts and Sections: Section 307 of the IPC - Summary: The court examined the essential ingredients required to prove an offence under Section 307 of the IPC and referred to various Supreme Court judgments to establish the intention and act required for the offence. The court concluded that the offence under Section 307 of the IPC was not made out and instead convicted the appellant under Section 326 of the IPC.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant assaulted multiple individuals with a sharp-edged knife, causing severe injuries. The prosecution established the motive behind the crime, and the injured witnesses provided consistent statements supporting the prosecution's case.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the offence under Section 307 of the IPC was not made out and instead convicted the appellant under Section 326 of the IPC. The court also maintained the appellant's convictions under Sections 324, 506 of the IPC, and 25(1)(b) of the Arms Act.
Issues: The main issue was whether the appellant's actions constituted an offence under Section 307 of the IPC.
Ratio Decidendi: The court examined the essential ingredients required to prove an offence under Section 307 of the IPC and referred to various Supreme Court judgments to establish the intention and act required for the offence. The court concluded that the offence under Section 307 of the IPC was not made out and instead convicted the appellant under Section 326 of the IPC.
Final Decision: The criminal appeal was allowed to the extent that the appellant was convicted under Section 326 of the IPC instead of Section 307 of the IPC.
JUDGMENT :
Sanjay K. Agrawal, J.
1. This criminal appeal preferred by the appellant herein under Section 374(2) of the CrPC is directed against the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 25-1-2012 passed in Sessions Trial No.28/2010 by the Additional Sessions Judge, Sarangarh, District Raigarh, by which the appellant herein has been convicted and sentenced as under: -
| Conviction | Sentences |
| Section 307 of the IPC | Imprisonment for life and fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default, additional simple imprisonment for six months |
| Section 324 of the IPC | Rigorous imprisonment for three years and fine of Rs.500/-, in default, additional simple imprisonment for three months |
| Section 506 of the IPC | Rigorous imprisonment for two years and fine of Rs.500/-, in default, additional simple imprisonment for three months |
| Section 25(1)(b) of the Arms Act | Simple imprisonment for one year (All sentences were directed to run concurrently) |
2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 22-5-2010 at 8 p.m., the appellant herein assaulted complainant Shivaji Ratnakar (PW-7) by sharp-edged knife while he was brushing his teeth in the courtyard outside his house, on his stomach, right forearm, left forearm, left arm above elbow and also caused incised wound in the size of 4.5 cms. x 2 cms. deep cut near chest. When the complainant (PW-7) shouted, Kiran Kumar (PW-10) came to intervene, then the appellant also assaulted Kiran Kumar (PW-10) who also suffered six incised wounds and thereafter, the appellant also assaulted Puniram (PW-8) and Tipu Sultan (PW-16). Shivaji Ratnakar (PW-7), Kiran Kumar (PW-10) and Tipu Sultan (PW-16) all are sons of Puniram (PW-8). It is the further case of the prosecution that immediately thereafter, on the report of Shivaji Ratnakar (PW-7) on the first information report being made by him, all the injured persons were sent to Primary Health Centre, Sarangarh and articles were seized vide Exs.P-14 to P-19. Spot map was prepared vide Ex.P-20. Seized knife and other articles were sent for forensic examination to the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) and the FSL report dated 4-8-2010 was brought on record in which blood was found on all articles including knife.
3. After due investigation, charge-sheet was filed against the appellant for offence under Sections 307, 324, 325 & 506 of the IPC and also under Section 25 of the Arms Act before the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Sarangarh and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions, Raigarh from where the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sarangarh received the case on transfer for trial.
4. The prosecution in order to bring home the offence, examined as many as 17 witnesses in support of its case and exhibited 41 documents Exs.P-1 to P-41. Defence has not examined any witness in its support, however, exhibited two documents Exs.D-1 & D-2. Statement of the accused/appellant was recorded under Section 313 of the CrPC in which he abjured the guilt and pleaded innocence and false implication and claimed to be tried.
5. The trial Court after completion of trial and upon appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, by its impugned judgment, convicted and sentenced the appellant as mentioned in the opening paragraph of this judgment against which he has preferred the instant appeal under Section 374(2) of the CrPC.
6. Mrs. Indira Tripathi, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, would submit that all the injuries are simple in nature and no offence except under Section 324 of the IPC would be made out against the appellant, the punishment awarded is disproportionate to the offence in question and as such, it is liable to be set aside.
7. Mr. Sudeep Verma, learned Deputy Government Advocate appearing for the State/respondent, would support the impugned judgment and submit that the prosecution has brought home the o
