Back
2004 Supreme(Del) 921
High Court Of Delhi
MANOJ KUMAR - Appellant
Versus
THE STATE - Respondent
CRIMINAL APPEAL 749 of 2002
Decided On : 10/13/2004
Anil Soni, R.K.MEHTA
The central legal point established in the judgment is the distinction between the offences of attempt to murder and causing hurt with a dangerous weapon, based on the nature of injuries, the weapon used, and the intention of the accused.
Headnote:
Attempt to Murder - Criminal Law - IPC Section 307, IPC Section 324, IPC Section 326 - The court analyzed the nature of injuries, the weapon used, and the intention of the accused to determine the appropriate charge. The judgment highlighted the legal provisions of attempt to murder under IPC Section 307 and the distinction from causing hurt with a dangerous weapon under IPC Section 326. The court's decision was influenced by the severity and persistence of the blows, the nature of the weapon used, and the circumstances of the incident.
Fact of the Case:
The appellants were convicted of the offence charged under Section 307/34 IPC for assaulting the complainant with a dangerous weapon, resulting in injuries. The complainant's initial statement to the police and his testimony in court differed in some aspects.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the injuries did not reflect an intention to cause death, ruling out the offence under Section 307 IPC. The conviction was set aside and converted to a conviction under Section 326/34 IPC, considering the nature of the injuries and the circumstances of the incident.
Issues: The key issues revolved around the complainant's varying statements, the nature of the injuries, and the intention of the accused, leading to a determination of the appropriate charge under the IPC.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the analysis of the nature of injuries, the weapon used, and the intention of the accused, applying the legal principles of attempt to murder and causing hurt with a dangerous weapon under the IPC.
Final Decision: The conviction under Section 307/34 IPC was set aside and converted to a conviction under Section 326/34 IPC. The appellants were ordered to undergo RI for 4 years with a fine of Rs. 1,000/- each.
( 1 ) APPELLANTS who are brothers were named as offenders by the injured/complainant in FIR No. 578/2000 under Section 307/34 IPC P. S. Uttam Nagar. They were tried by the Additional Sessions Judge in Sessions Case no. 66/01. Vide judgment dated 5. 8. 2002, they were convicted of the offence charged of. Vide order dated 8. 8. 2002, sentence imposed was 7 years RI with fine of rs. 5,000/- each, in default SI for 3 months.
( 2 ) INJURED Prashant had made the following statement pursuant whereto, FIR was registered :
"i reside at K-1/55, Mohan Garden, Uttam Nagar, New delhi along with my family. Today dated 29. 6. 2000 at about 9. 30 PM, carrying Rs. 2/- in coins I went to purchase ice at Peeple Wala Chowk. One rupee coin fell down from my hand. Handing over the other coin to manoj, who was selling ice, I told him to give me ice for Rs. 2/ -. I told him that I would give him Re. 1/- later on. Manoj refused to sell ice to me. I told him that he knew me and I would give him Re. 1/- tomorrow. Altercation ensued. His elder brother Raju reached in the meanwhile. He slapped me on my face. Both brothers assaulted me. Raju exhaulted, today is the right time to teach me a lesson. So exhaulting, raju held my arms from the rear and exhaulted Manoj to hit me at which Manoj picked up "sua" used for breaking ice and stabbed me in my stomach. Thereafter, Raju assaulted me on my chest with something pointed. To save my life, I ran away. When I was running away they threatened to kill me. "
( 3 ) THE complainant Prashant was admitted at Deen dayal Upadhyay Hospital at 10. 40 PM on the date of occurrence i. e. 29. 6. 2000. MLC recorded following injuries on his person :- (i) Punctured wound on the right side of epigahtrium. (ii) Multiple incised wound-linear-over left side chest and and skin deep over infra-clavicular area No. 3. (iii) Multiple incised wound-linear-over right infra- clavicular area - skin deep. (iv) Abrasion-linear over left right elbow.
( 4 ) DR. P. SONI had attended Prashant. He prepared the MLC on 19. 7. 2000. He recorded nature of injury to be dangerous.
( 5 ) DR. P. SONI having left Deen Dayal Upadhyay hospital, when case went to trial, Dr. Vivek Khanna proved the MLC. Dr. Vivek Khanna appeared as PW-7.
( 6 ) IN his testimony, Dr. Vivek Khanna opined that injuries 2, 3 and 4 being superficial could not be dangerous. He stated that only injury No. 1 could be stated to be dangerous. However, since he had not examined the patient and was only proving MLC prepared by Dr. P. Soni, he stated that this was his opinion. He further deposed that injury No. 2 and 3 could be self- inflicted. On being questioned, as to how injury No. 1 was dangerous, he deposed that surgery on the patient was done on 30. 6. 2000. Operation notes recorded injury to be :
"stab wound penetrating deep to peritonium and reaching upto interior wall of stomach caused a tiny perferation. "
( 7 ) HE deposed that on 29. 7. 2000 since Dr. P. Soni had benefit of operation notes, considering the note aforesaid, Dr. P. Soni might have opined injury to be dangerous.
( 8 ) ONLY one eye witness was produced at the evidence by the prosecution, he being the complainant prashant.
( 9 ) IN his examination-in-chief, Prashant stated as under:
"on 29th June,2000 at about 9. 30/10. 00 p. m. I had gone to fetch ice from Peepal Chowk, Mohan Garden. I had gone on foot from my house. Manoj accused present in the court today was present at the ice shop. I purchased ice from him for a sum of Rs. 2/ -. When I put my hand in my pocket I found that I had only one coin of Rupee one. The other coin had been lost in the way. I asked the accused to accept rupee one today and that I will give the other rupee on the next day. On this the accused replied that if I had no money I should not have asked for ice. I told him that the knew me well and I will give him the balance rupee one on the next day. On this an altercation took place. I asked the accused not to abuse me. As we we
