1. Appeals against conviction under Sections 324/326 IPC and acquittal under Section 307 IPC and Arms Act. (Para 2 , 3 )
Back
Next 
2026 Supreme(HP) 902
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Vivek Singh Thakur, Bhupesh Sharma, JJ.
State of H.P. – Appellant
Versus
Sunil Kisku – Respondent
Cr. Appeal No. 358 of 2015, Cr. Appeal No. 469 of 2015
Decided On : 09-10-2026
Important Points
Conviction under Section 307 IPC requires proof of mens rea (intention or knowledge to cause death); the nature of the injury alone, even if dangerous to life, is insufficient to establish an attempt to murder without evidence of such intent.
Subject
Criminal Law - Attempt to Murder
Act Referred
INDIAN PENAL CODE : S.307, S.324, S.326
ARMS ACT : S.25, S.27
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE : S.154, S.161, S.313, S.377, S.378
BHARATIYA NAGARIK SURAKSHA SANHITA : S.109
ARMS ACT : S.25, S.27
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE : S.154, S.161, S.313, S.377, S.378
BHARATIYA NAGARIK SURAKSHA SANHITA : S.109
Headnote
(A) Arms Act - Prohibited Arms - Use of 'darat' (sickle) - A sickle does not fall under the definition of prohibited arms under Section 2(a)(i) of the Arms Act, 1959, and in the absence of a government notification specifying it as such, possession or use of the same does not attract Sections 25 and 27 of the Act. (Para 22, 23)
(B) Indian Penal Code - Attempt to Murder - Section 307 - Intention and Knowledge - The gravity or nature of the injury, even if opined to be dangerous to life, is not determinative of an offence under Section 307 IPC unless the prosecution establishes the requisite mens rea, specifically the intention or knowledge to cause death. (Para 29, 30, 31)
(C) Sentencing - Enhancement - Spontaneous Incident - Where the incident is found to be spontaneous, without premeditated plan or conspiracy, and the quantum of sentence awarded is not perverse, there is no justification for enhancement of the sentence. (Para 33)
Issues: Whether the respondent is liable for conviction under Section 307 IPC and Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act, and whether the sentence awarded under Sections 324 and 326 IPC deserves enhancement.
(B) Indian Penal Code - Attempt to Murder - Section 307 - Intention and Knowledge - The gravity or nature of the injury, even if opined to be dangerous to life, is not determinative of an offence under Section 307 IPC unless the prosecution establishes the requisite mens rea, specifically the intention or knowledge to cause death. (Para 29, 30, 31)
(C) Sentencing - Enhancement - Spontaneous Incident - Where the incident is found to be spontaneous, without premeditated plan or conspiracy, and the quantum of sentence awarded is not perverse, there is no justification for enhancement of the sentence. (Para 33)
Issues: Whether the respondent is liable for conviction under Section 307 IPC and Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act, and whether the sentence awarded under Sections 324 and 326 IPC deserves enhancement.
Legal Category Hierarchy
- crime and sentencing
- practice and procedure
Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr.Yashwardhan Chauhan, Senior Additional Advocate General
For the Respondent:Mr.Lakshay Thakur, Advocate
For the Appellant :Mr.Yashwardhan Chauhan, Senior Additional Advocate General
For the Respondent:Mr.Lakshay Thakur, Advocate
Table of Contents
2. State seeks conviction under Section 307 IPC and Arms Act, and sentence enhancement under Sections 324/326 IPC. (Para 6 , 7 )
3. No intention or knowledge to cause death; darat not a prohibited arm; no license requirement shown. (Para 22 , 23 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 )
4. For Section 307 IPC, mens rea and actus reus of attempt to murder must be proved; injury nature alone insufficient. (Para 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 30 )
5. Both appeals dismissed for lack of evidence; no enhancement of sentence warranted. (Para 34 )
6. What must be proved to convict under Section 307 IPC for attempt to murder?
The prosecution must prove intention or knowledge to cause death, and an act that if death occurred would be murder. Nature of injury alone is insufficient. (Para 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 30 , 31 , 32 )
7. Is a darat (sickle) a prohibited arm under the Arms Act requiring a license?
No. A darat is not a prohibited arm under Section 2(a)(i) of the Arms Act, and no notification from the Central Government prohibiting it was shown. (Para 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 )
JUDGMENT :
Vivek Singh Thakur, J.
Both these appeals, arising out of the same judgment dated 19.03.2015, passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Kullu in Sessions Trial No. 98 of 2014, in case FIR No. 41 of 2013, dated 28.04.2013, registered in Police Station Manali, District Kullu, under Sections 307, 326, 324 of the Indian Penal Code (for short ‘IPC’) and Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act, are being decided together for involvement of appreciation of same evidence and material on record of the Trial Court.
2. On 31.10.2013 charges against respondent were framed under Sections 324, 326 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code as well as Section 25 read with Section 27 of the Arms Act.
3. Vide impugned judgment dated 19.03.2015, respondent has been convicted under Sections 324 and 326 of Indian Penal Code; however, he has been acquitted under Section 307 of IPC and Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act.
4. Vide order dated 24.03.2015, respondent has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years with fine of Rs. 5,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo simple imprisonment for three months for commission of offence under Section 326 IPC and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year with fine of Rs. 3,000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for two months for commission of offence under Section 324 Indian Penal Code.
5. Respondent was arrested on 28.04.2013 and he remained in custody as an under-trial prisoner till pronouncement of judgment and awarding sentence upon him that is till 24.03.2015. As of now, respondent has served the sentence awarded to him and he has not preferred any appeal against his conviction under Sections 326 and 324 of the Indian Penal Code.
6. Criminal Appeal No. 358 of 2015 has been preferred under Section 377 of Cr.P.C. for enhancement of sentence awarded to the respondent under Sections 326 and 324 of IPC.
7. Criminal Appeal No. 469 of 2015 has been preferred by the State under Section 378 of Cr.P.C. against acquittal of respondent under Section 307 IPC and Sections 25 and 27 of Arms Act.
8. Prosecution case is that on 28.04.2013 at around 12:00 noon, PW-2 Tashi was working inside his Dhaba near 15 Miles Bridge in District Kullu and his wife PW-3 Banti and one Nisha were sitting outside the Dhaba. Accused came and started pelting stones upon the Dhaba, whereupon PW-3 Banti and Nisha cried for help. Complainant PW-2 Tashi came out and asked the respondent about reason for pelting stones on the ladies, whereupon respondent attacked PW-2 Tashi with darat twice, causing injuries on his head and ear. Thereafter he attacked PW-3 Banti and Nisha by giving them darat blow on their heads. When Nisha tried to flee from the spot, respondent chased her and gave one darat blow on her head. Both ladies Banti and Nisha cried for help by saying "bachao bachao" and at that time, Kunj Lal, Khim Dass, PW-4 Hira Lal, residents of village Batahar were present at Bihal Somvan, which was across the bridge. They came forward to rescue Nisha who was crying for help, whereupon respondent attacked Khim Dass, gave first blow of darat to Khim Dass, second blow of darat to Kunj Lal, and one darat blow to PW-4 Hira Lal. However, with the help of other villagers, PW-4 Hira Lal overpowered the accused and snatched the darat from him and handed over it to PW-2 Tashi. Matter was reported to the Police. Police came on the spot and in pursuant to incident, Rapat Ex. PW-7/D was recorded and injured were rushed to hospital.
9. On the basis of statement of complainant PW-2 Tashi, recorded under Section 154 Cr.P.C. Ex. PW-2/A, FIR was registered in the Police Station. Darat Ex. P-6 was also taken in possession vide memo Ex. PW-2/C on production thereof by PW-2 Tashi.
10. After collecting evidence including medical evidence and photographs etc., and recording statements of witnesses under Section 161 Cr.P.C., challan was prepared and presented in the Court.
11. On finding su
