To establish a conviction for attempted murder under Section 307 IPC, there must be intention or knowledge, which is absent if injuries are not dangerous to life.

JUDGMENT :

PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J.

1. I have already heard the arguments advanced by Mr. Sahil, learned counsel for the appellant as well as Mrs. Priya Shrestha, learned Addl. P.P. appearing for the State but no one appeared on behalf of the informant.

2. This instant criminal appeal is directed against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 25.04.2006 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Koderma in Sessions Trial No.40 of 2004 (corresponding to G.R. Case No.207 of 2003), whereby and whereunder the sole appellant has been held guilty for the offences under Sections 307 and 324 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment (R.I.) for seven years along with fine of Rs.1000/- with default stipulation under Section 307 of the I.P.C. but no separate sentence has been passed under Section 324 of the I.P.C. whereas other co-accused namely Lakshman Sao and Phaguni Devi were held guilty for the offences under Sections 323 and 324 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE respectively and extended the benefit of Section 360 Cr.P.C. being first offender.

3. Factual matrix giving rise to this appeal is that on 03.05.2003 at about 06:00 p.m., present appellant came in front of the house of informant Basant Narayan Thakur for putting hook in the electric pole situated in front of the house of informant with a view to commit theft of electricity but the electric spark started then informant’s daughter Sangita suggested the appellant to call an electrician and get the connection fitted with pole perfectly and upon this Ganesh Sao started abusing her which was intervened by the informant then present appellant caught hold of the informant and started assaulting him by lathi. In the meantime, accused Lakshman Sao also approached there and assaulted the informant by lathi on back. The informant raised alarm for help, meanwhile, Ganesh Sao gave a tangi blow on his head causing severe injuries. It is further alleged that informant’s daughter-in-law came to rescue him then Ganesh Sao gave another tangi blow on her head also. Informant’s another daughter-in-law Usha Devi also came to rescue them and she was also assaulted by lathi. Thereafter, Phaguni Devi wife of Lakshman Sao also came there and started pelting stones upon informant party. It is alleged that several villagers assembled on the spot then accused persons managed to flee away.

4. On the basis of above information, F.I.R. was registered for the offences under Sections 34 1, 323, 324, 307 read with Section 34 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE as Koderma P.S. Case No.141 of 2003.

5. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was submitted against the appellant for the offences under Sections 34 1, 323, 324, 325, 307 read with Section 34 of the I.P.C. Accordingly, cognizance was taken and subsequently, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions where Sessions Trial No.40 of 2004 (corresponding to G.R. Case No.207 of 2003) was registered. Charges were framed against the accused appellant under Sections 34 1, 323, 324, 325, 307 read with Section 34 of the I.P.C. which was read over and explained to him, to which he denied and claimed to be tried. 5. After conclusion of trial, the appellant was held guilty for the aforesaid offences and sentenced as stated above which has been assailed in this appeal.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant has vehemently argued that there is allegation of causing injury to informant by lathi and tangi and the injury sustained by informant was also found to be simple in nature. The genesis of occurrence as depicted in the F.I.R. was taking electri