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.

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 2^nd 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 persons and with knowledge that the said injuries would result into their death.

3. On the report lodged by PW-7, a crime was registered for the offences punishable under Sections 307 , 324, 323, 504, 506(2) and 114 of the IPC. The case was investigated and after completion of investigation, Charge-sheet was filed by the police against the accused for the aforesaid offences.

4. As the offence punishable under Section 307 of the IPC is exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the committal Court committed the said case to the Court of Sessions Division. Thereafter, it was made over to learned 2^nd Additional Sessions Judge, Anand at Khambhat for trial. The trial Court has framed the Charge for the offences punishable under Sections 307 , 324, 323, 504, 506(2) and 114 of the IPC against the accused. The accused denied the said Charge and claimed to be tried. At the culmination of trial, the trial Court did not find the accused guilty for the offence punishable under Section 307 of the IPC and thereby, acquitted them for the said charge. The trial Court found the accused guilty for offences punishable under Sections 323 , 324, 325, 504, 506(2) and 114 of the IPC and accordingly, convicted and sentenced them to undergo imprisonment.

5. Aggrieved by the judgment of acquittal of the accused for the offence punishable under Section 307 of the IPC, the de facto complainant has preferred the instant appeal questioning the legality and validity of the said acquittal for the offence punishable under Section 307 of the IPC.

6. After considering the evidence on record and appreciation of the said evidence, the trial Court found that the accused attacked all the four injured with Dhariya and caused injuries to them on their head. So, the trial Court convicted the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 323 , 324, 325, 504, 506(2) and 114 of the IPC. But, the trial Court did not find that there was any intention on the part of the accused to commit murder of the injured or that they caused the said injuries with knowledge that it will result into the death of the injured. So, the trial Court has acquitted the accused of the charge for the offence punishable under Section 307 of the IPC.

7. We have carefully considered the evidence on record and scrutinized the same. We also do not find any evidence on record to prove and establish that the accused had any intention to commit murder of the injured in this c