Conviction under Section 307 of the IPC requires clear intent; mere mutual combat without intent negates attempted murder charges.

JUDGMENT

Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for appellants Ms. Chandana Kumari as well as learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State Mr. Sanjay Kumar Srivastava.

2. Since these appeals arises out of common judgment and order of conviction and sentence, hence are being heard and disposed of by common judgment.

3. It appears from the record that these appeals so far the appellants Jagdish Mahto, Khago Mahto, Chaman Mahto and Babu Mahto @ Yadav in Cr.Appeal (SJ) No. 471 of 2006 and Basudeo Mahto in Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 506 of 2006 are concerned, have been abated vide order dated 09.06.2022 passed by the co-ordinate Bench of this court.

4. These appeals are directed against the judgment and order of conviction dated 27^th March, 2007 and sentence dated 29^th March, 2006 for the offence under Sections 307 , 147, 148 and 323 of the I.P.C. passed in Sessions Trial Case No. 146 of 1998 passed by learned 1^st Additional Sessions Judge, Hazaribagh whereby and whereunder the appellants have been held guilty and sentenced to undergo R.I. of five years along with fine of Rs.500/- each under Section 307 of the I.P.C. and six months simple imprisonment for the offence under Sections 147 , 148 and 323 of the I.P.C. along with fine of Rs.500/- each with default stipulation and both the sentences were directed to run concurrently.

FACTUAL MATRIX

5. Factual matrix giving rise to these appeals as per F.I.R. lodged on the basis of fardbeyan of the informant stating inter alia that on 25.10.1996 at about 06:00 A.M., in the morning, accused persons along with others armed with lathi, tangi, iron rod reached at the paddy field of the informant and tried to harvest the paddy crop, meanwhile informant along with other members reached at the spot and upon protest, accused persons started abusing in filthy language to the informant and others. Upon the instigation of Jagdish Mahto (since deceased), other accused persons attacked on the informant party by lathi, tangi, bricks, stones and iron rod and started assaulting the informant party. On raising alarm by the informant party, the co-villagers assembled there and tried to pacify the matter and saved the informant party.

On the basis of above fardbeyan an F.I.R. was registered as Barkatha P.S. Case No. 56/96 and after due investigation charge-sheet was submitted under Sections, 147, 148, 149, 323 and 307 of the I.P.C.

The case was committed to the court of Sessions, where the accused persons denied the charges and claimed to be tried.

6. Learned counsel for the appellants has vehemently argued and submitted that there were case and counter-case due to land dispute between the parties. In the instant case altogether 25 persons were put for trial in S.T. Case No. 146/1998 and out of them 11 accused persons were acquitted and only 14 accused persons were convicted for the offences under Sections 307 , 147, 148 and 323 of the I.P.C. and all were directed to undergo R.I. for five years under Section 307 along with a fine of Rs.500/- and S.I. for a period of six months for the offence under Sections 147 , 148 and 323 of the I.P.C. with default stipulation. It is further submitted that there was exchange of assault from both parties without any intention or knowledge as required to constitute offence of under Section 307 of the I.P.C. Informant party have sustained simple injuries while from the side of the appellants party one person was murdered in the said occurrence. The conviction and sentence of the appellants for the offence under Section 307 of the I.P.C. is absolutely not warranted under law in the proved facts and circumstances, which is liable to be set asid