Back
1995 Supreme(Del) 346
High Court Of Delhi
PREM PRAKASH ALIAS PREM - Appellant
Versus
STATE - Respondent
CRIMINAL APPEAL 19 of 1977
Decided On : 04/25/1995
Dhanbir Singh, P.K.SHARMA
In order to establish the offence of attempt to murder under Section 307 IPC, the prosecution must prove that the accused had the intention to cause death or that they inflicted injuries that were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature.
Headnote:
ATTEMPT TO MURDER - SECTION 307 IPC - INTENTION TO CAUSE DEATH - EVIDENCE - MEDICAL EVIDENCE - WEAPON OF OFFENCE - CONVICTION ALTERED FROM SECTION 307 TO 324 IPC.
Fact of the Case:
The appellants were convicted under Section 307/34 IPC for causing hurt to the complainant with a knife. The prosecution alleged that the appellants had a motive to kill the complainant because he was in love with a woman who was not interested in them.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the prosecution had not established that the appellants had the intention to cause death or that they had inflicted injuries that were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. The court also noted that the weapon of offence was not produced before the trial court and that there was no medical evidence to show that the injuries were grievous.
Issues: Whether the prosecution had established that the appellants had the intention to cause death or that they had inflicted injuries that were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the prosecution had not established that the appellants had the intention to cause death or that they had inflicted injuries that were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. The court also noted that the weapon of offence was not produced before the trial court and that there was no medical evidence to show that the injuries were grievous.
Final Decision: The court altered the conviction of the appellants from Section 307/34 IPC to one under Section 324 IPC, which is the offence of voluntarily causing hurt by means of a dangerous weapon.
( 2 ) THE incident giving rise to the present appeals took place on 7-9-75. It appears that the complainant Anil Kumar (P. W. 5) and appellants were in love with Ms. Uttam (P. W. 6 ). Since Ms. Uttam (P. W. 6) used to remain in the company of Anil Kumar (P. W. 5), the appellant felt ill about it. According to the prosecution, on 7-9-75 at about 8 p. m. , while Anil Kumar (P. W. 5) and Ms. Uttam (P. W. 6) were proceeding towards Dina Ka Talab, the appellants came from behind. Appellants Amir Chand and Prem Prakash secured Anil Kumar and dragged him in a nearby lane. Appellant Ved Prakash followed them. Thereafter, the appellant Ved Prakash took out a knife and inflicted two blows with it as a result whereof Anil Kumar sustained one injury on the left side of his stomach and the other on his left thigh. Anil Kumar (P. W. 5) raised an alarm, which attracted Ganpat (P. W. 8) to the spot, seeing whom the appellants Amir Chand and Prem Prakash showed their heels. When Anil Kumar (P. W. 5) started going towards Basant Restaurant the appellant Ved Prakash again inflicted another knife blow on his back. Anil Kumar (P. W. 5) fell on the ground and became unconscious. Immediately thereafter, he was removed to the Irwin Hospital where he was medically examined by Dr. Y. P. Kapoor. A message was flashed from the spot to the flying squad which, in turn, informed P. S. Roshanara about the occurrence. A case under Section 307/34, IPC was registered at the P. S. Roshanara. Investigation, thereafter, followed. On completion of this investigation, the charge was laid.
( 3 ) THE appellants abjured their guilt and alleged that a false case has been foisted on them. On the evidence adduced by the prosecution, the learned Session Judge came to the conclusion that the appellants had some leaning towards Km. Uttam (P. W. 6) who was not favourably inclined towards any one of them but was actually carrying on an affair with Anil Kumar which was not liked by the appellants. Apparently, the appellants wanted to get rid of Anil Kumar and for that reason, they assaulted Anil Kumar. According to the learned Session Judge, the appellant Prem Prakash and Amir Chand secured Anil Kumar and the appellant Ved Prakash inflicted two knife blows to him, one on the left side of his stomach and the other on his left thigh. Anil Kumar raised an alarm, which attracted Ganpat (P. W. 8) to the spot seeing whom the appellants Prem Prakash and Amir Chand showed their heels. When Anil Kumar started going towards Basant Restaurant, the appellant Ved Prakash inflicted another knee blow on his back. In the result, the learned Additional Session Judge found the appellants guilty and convicted them under Section 307/34, IPC and sentenced each of them to suffer rigorous imprisonment for four years together with a fine of Rupees 200/- in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for four months.
( 4 ) THE mainstay of the prosecution case is the testimony of Anil Kumar (P. W. 8) and Ganpat (P. W. 8 ). Learned counsel for the appellants strenuously contended that the learned Additional Session Judge has committed a grave error in holding that the offence under Section 307, IPC was made out on the basis of the testimony of Anil Kumar (P. W. 5) and Ganpat (P. W. 8 ). I find considerable force in this contention. Learned Additional Sessions Judge has not held that the prosecution has established that the intention of the appellant Ved Prakash in causing the injuries to Anil Kumar (P. W. 5) was any of the three kinds, refereed to in Section 300, IPC. To
