Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY, D.M.VYAS
Mukeshbhai Virsangbhai Rathod – Appellant
Versus
State Of Gujarat – Respondent
ORDER :
CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY, J.
1. Aggrieved by the judgment of acquittal of the accused for the offence punishable under Section 307 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE , 1860 (herein after referred to as “the IPC”) in Sessions Case No. 32 of 2020 on the file of learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Anand at Khambhat dated 04.12.2024, the present appeal is preferred by the de facto complainant and the injured assailing the legality and validity of the judgment of acquittal for the offence punishable under Section 307 of the IPC.
2. As per the prosecution version, there was a land dispute between the family of de facto complainant and the accused Nos. 1 to 4 and therefore, the accused bore grudge against the family of the complainant, who is examined as PW-7. So, on 02.05.2018 at about 2:00 p.m., accused Nos. 1 to 4, armed with Dhariya (Scythe) came to the house of PW-7 and attacked him, his brother PW-8, his mother PW-9 and his father PW-10 and caused injuries to them with the said Dhariya. All the four injured sustained simple injuries on their head. It is stated that the accused attacked the injured and caused the said injuries with intention to commit murder of the said injured
To establish an offence under Section 307 IPC, the prosecution must prove intent to kill, which cannot be inferred solely from the use of a lethal weapon or the nature of injuries inflicted.
Proof of grievous or life-threatening hurt is not essential for the offence punishable u/s 307 of the IPC. The intention of the accused can be ascertained from the actual injury and surrounding circu....
Discharge stage limits court to prima facie case assessment without evidence scrutiny; 'dangerous to life' injury equals grievous hurt, but single abdominal sharp blow amid road rage insufficient for....
The conviction under Section 307 IPC requires proof of intention to cause death or grievous bodily harm, which was established despite the injuries being classified as simple.
Conviction under Section 307 IPC affirmed based on corroborated eyewitness testimony and evidence suggesting intent to kill, regardless of fatal injury. The appeal was dismissed.
Framing charges under Section 307 IPC requires clear evidence of intent or knowledge to kill, which was lacking, thereby limiting the charges to less serious offences.
The court held that acquittal requires compelling reasons for interference, emphasizing that mere serious injury does not suffice to establish intent under Section 307 of IPC.
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
