Back
2006 Supreme(Gau) 1048
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI
B.D. Agarwal, J.
Jagadish Medhi
Vs.
The State of Assam
Decided On : 24.11.2006
The infliction of bodily injury sufficient to cause death is enough to bring the offense within the scope of Section 307, IPC.
Headnote:
Section 307 - Attempted Murder - Indian Penal Code - [Section 307, IPC] - The court discussed the intention and knowledge required for a conviction under Section 307, IPC, citing relevant case law to establish that the infliction of bodily injury sufficient to cause death is enough to bring the offense within the scope of the section. The court upheld the conviction under Section 307, IPC, based on the overt act of firing gunshots and the resulting bullet injury, despite the absence of direct evidence of intention to kill.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant, a constable, was convicted under Section 307, IPC for firing gunshots at the injured, causing physical injury. The appellant appealed against the conviction and sentence.
Finding of the Court:
The court upheld the conviction under Section 307, IPC, based on the evidence of firing gunshots and the resulting injury, rejecting the defense's claim of accidental firing and lack of intention to kill.
Issues: Discrepancies regarding the place of occurrence, intention behind firing gunshots, and the reduction of sentence based on mitigating factors.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on case law to establish the intention and knowledge required for a conviction under Section 307, IPC, and considered mitigating factors for reducing the sentence.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, and the sentence under Section 307, IPC was reduced from 5 years to 4 years.
B.D. Agarwal, J.
1. The sole appellant Sri Jagadish Medhi stands convicted under Section 307, I.P.C. vide judgment and order dated 30-9-2004 passed by Smt. M. Choudhury, the then learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kamrup, Guwahati in Sessions Case No. 17(K)/2000. By the impugned judgment the appellant has been sentenced to undergo R. I. for 5 (five) years and also to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default sentenced for another 2 (two) months R. I. Simultaneously the appellant has also been convicted under Section 447, I.P.C. and further one month R. I. has been awarded.
2. Aggrieved with the conviction and sentence the accused has preferred this appeal. I have heard Mr. C. R. Dey, learned Sr. counsel for the appellant. I have also heard Mr. B.S. Sinha, learned Addl. P.P., Assam for the State. I have also gone through the impugned judgment and evidence of witnesses.
3. As could be gathered from the record the incident took place in the early morning of 18-1-1995. At the relevant time, the appellant was working as a constable in the Railway Protection Force (in short, RPF). The injured Borkat Ali's father Saukat Ali (PW 1) was also an employee of RPF. Both the appellant and the informant were living in official quarters which were situated at Maligaon, Guwahati. It is the prosecution case that in the early morning the appellant entered the compound of the injured in an angry mood and fired as many as three gunshots. One gunshot hit the chest of the injured causing physical injury. Consequently the injured had to take two weeks medical treatment.
4. The FIR was lodged on the vary same day at about 1.30 p.m., specifically naming the appellant as the assailant. This FIR was registered as Jalukbari P.S. Case No. 19/1995 Under Section 447/326/307, IPC. After the charge-sheet, the appellant was accordingly tried and he has been convicted under Ss. 447 and 307, IPC. In my considered opinion, if the accused is convicted under Section 307, IPC there is no need to convict the same persons under Section 326. Hence, the appellant has been rightly not convicted Under Section 326, IPC separately.
5. Sri C.R. Dey, learned Sr. counsel for the appellant submitted that there are material discrepancies regarding the place of occurrence. The learned Counsel has also submitted that the incident took place in the midst of scuffle and the appellant had no intention to fire any gunshot to kill PW 2.
6. From the record I find that the prosecution examined altogether 11 witnesses. PW 1 is the father of the injured; PW 2 is the injured himself; PW 3 is the Medical Officer; PWs 4 to 7 are the RPF constables and remaining witnesses are police officers, who had taken part in the investigation at different stages.
7. The defence case in the trial Court was that PW 2 sustained gunshot injury accidentally. However, no counter evidence was proffered to be establish this alibi. Besides this, the witnesses, who are the colleagues of the appellant, have also not supported the theory of accidental injury.
8. From the impugned judgment and the record I find that the appellant has admitted the fact that he was involved with the injured in the alleged scuffle. Admittedly no third person was involved in the incident. The accused did not project any counter story that PW 2 must have received bullet injury at some other place and in some other incident.
9. Hence, the first question which falls for my determination is whether the gunshot came out of the riffle accidentally.
10. All the constables of RPF have corroborated the fact that minutes before the incident the appellant had collected his rifle and ammunition from the office. From the evidence I find that the appellant was carrying 303 rifle. The mechanism of this rifle is such that after firing of one bullet, some manual adjustment has to be done to put the second bullet for firing. The accused has nowhere clarified during the trial or in his statement under Section 313, Cr.P.C. that it was an automatic rifle. From the
