Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Rajiv Sharma & Vivek Singh Thakur, JJ.
Balwant Rai – Appellant
Versus
Ramesh Chand and Another – Respondents
Cr. Appeal No. 70 of 2011
Decided On : 16-09-2016
Attempt to Murder - Criminal Intent - Section 307 IPC - [ATTEMPT TO MURDER] - [CRIMINAL INTENT] - [Section 307 IPC] - The court discussed the essential elements of Section 307 IPC, emphasizing the requirement of criminal intent and knowledge to commit murder. It highlighted the need for the prosecution to prove the intention or knowledge of the accused to constitute the offense of attempt to murder under Section 307 IPC. The court referred to relevant case laws and legal provisions to interpret the mens rea and actus reus required for conviction under Section 307 IPC. It concluded that in the absence of intention or knowledge of the respondents as required under Section 307 IPC, the respondents were not liable to be convicted under the said section.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant lodged a complaint against the respondents, alleging assault and injury. The trial resulted in the conviction of respondent No. 1 under Section 324 IPC and the acquittal of respondent No. 2. The appellant appealed to convict both respondents under Section 307 IPC.
Finding of the Court:
The court analyzed the evidence, witness statements, and medical reports to assess the criminal intent and knowledge of the respondents. It found that the prosecution failed to establish the intention or knowledge required for conviction under Section 307 IPC. The court also upheld the release of respondent No. 1 on probation of good conduct, considering the circumstances of the incident and the respondent's repentance.
Issues: The key issues revolved around the criminal intent and knowledge of the respondents, the nature of injuries, and the applicability of Section 307 IPC. The court also addressed the challenge to the release of respondent No. 1 on probation.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the lack of evidence supporting the criminal intent or knowledge required for conviction under Section 307 IPC. It also considered the circumstances of the incident, the medical evidence, and the repentance of the respondent in upholding the release on probation.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, and the court upheld the acquittal of respondent No. 2 and the release of respondent No. 1 on probation of good conduct.
Vivek Singh Thakur, J.
1. Appellant (PW-1 Balwant Rai) lodged a complaint against respondents No. 1 and 2 stating therein that on 18.11.2009 he, alongwith his daughters-in-law namely Manjit and Neena Devi, was irrigating his fields at about 2.30 PM and at that time his cousin Ramesh Chand (son of his Chacha) having spade in his hand alongwith his wife Rachana Devi having sickle in her hand reached there. They asked reason for damaging boundary of their fields. PW-1 Balwant Rai replied that he was raising blockade (Aad) for irrigating his field but respondents extending threaten to see him alleged that he was removing boundary of their fields and Respondent No. 1, Ramesh Chand gave a blow of spade on his head and respondent Rachna Devi inflicted injury on his right hand thumb with sickle causing bleeding from his hand and head. His daughters-in-law rescued him and took to Civil Dispensary Dehlan for treatment. After taking treatment he returned home. Thereafter matter was compromised between him and his cousin Ramesh Chand but thereafter also his cousin continued to threaten.
2. On registration of FIR matter was investigated and PW-1 Balwant Rai was medically examined and after completion of investigation challan was presented in the Court.
3. Respondents No. 1 and 2 were charge sheeted under Sections 323 and 307 read-with Section 34 IPC. On conclusion of trial, respondent No. 1 was convicted under Section 324 IPC and was given benefit of Section 4 of Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 whereas respondent No. 2 Rachana Devi was acquitted of charge framed against her under Sections 323 and 307 IPC read-with Section 34 IPC vide impugned judgment.
4. Respondent No. 1 did not file any appeal against his conviction. Therefore, his conviction under Section 324 stands accepted.
5. In instant appeal appellant/complainant has assailed impugned judgment with prayer to quash and set-aside the same and to convict respondents No. 1 and 2 under Section 307 IPC.
6. We have heard learned counsel for parties and have also gone through the record.
Section 307 reads as under:-
“307. Attempt to murder - Whoever does any act with such intention or knowledge, and under such circumstances that, if he by that act caused death, he would be guilty of murder, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine and if hurt is caused to any person by such act, the offender shall be liable either to (imprisonment for life), or to such punishment as is hereinbefore mentioned.
Attempt by life convicts (When any person offending under this section is under sentence of (imprisonment of life), he may, if hurt is caused, be punished with death).”
7. The offence of attempt to commit murder punishable under Section 307 IPC is constituted by occurrence of mens rea followed by an actus rues. An intent per-se is not an attempt. It implies purpose and attempt is an actual effort made in execution of the purpose. From overt act directed towards the objective sought, the criminal intent must be logically inferable. The attempt for purpose of Section 307 IPC should stem from a specific intention to commit murder and this blameworthy condition of mind may be gathered from direct or circumstantial evidence including the conduct of accused. When mens rea, which is essential part of offence of murder, is absent and where the weapons used by accused is ordinarily agricultural implement and does not necessarily indicate a deliberate intention to cause death or fatal injury, the accused is not be convicted under Section 307 IPC. (Mohindar Singh vs. State, AIR 1960 Punjab 135 and Kanbi Nagji Kala vs. State, AIR 1956, Saurashtra 107).
8. Conviction is not legally punishable under Section 307 IPC unless prosecution proves ingredients of Section 300 IPC of which intention or knowledge play a vital role. (Kumar Majhi vs. State, 1981 Cr.LJ 1787).
9. Under Section 307 IPC, Court has to see whether the act irres
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
