The requirement for intent in attempted murder under the IPC is not satisfied when injuries do not indicate a likelihood of death; lesser charges for simple injuries may apply.

JUDGMENT :

Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.

1. The present appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 30.06.2006 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Pakur in S.C. Nos.67 of 2001/137 of 2001 whereby and whereunder, the appellants have been convicted for the offences under sections 307 r/w 34 and 324 of Indian Penal Code and the appellant No.1 Budan Murmu @ Budhan Murmu was directed to undergo R.I. of 7 years under section 307 of IPC and appellant Nos.2 and 3 were directed to undergo R.I. of 4 years under sections 307/34 of IPC. No separate sentence has been awarded for the offence under section 324 of IPC to any of the appellants.

FACTUAL MATRIX

2. Factual matrix giving rise to this appeal is that there was dispute between the parties about cutting down of bamboo trees from the joint land. It is alleged that about two days’ prior to the occurrence, the accused Burhan Murmu cut down and took way two bamboos from the land jointly owned by the informant Sanatan Murmu and the accused persons, then the informant told that he would also cut two bamboo trees. Accordingly, on 09.04.2001 at about 10 AM, the informant went to bamboo bari(yard) and cut down two bamboo trees. In the meantime, the accused Burhan Murmu armed with bow and arrow, Jyoen Murmu armed with knife and lathi and Chandra Shekhar Murmu armed with arrow started scuffling with the informant. It is further alleged that the accused Burhan Murmu shot arrow with intention to kill the informant, which pierced in his stomach resultantly the informant fell down, thereafter Jyoen Murmu assaulted him by lathi and Chandra Shekhar Murmu assaulted him with legs and fists. It is further alleged that when the informant’s brother, namely, Loben Murmu and his nephew, Shivdhan Murmu came to rescue him then they were also assaulted by the accused persons. The informant was brought to hospital where his fardbayan was recorded by the police.

On the basis of above information, the FIR being Maheshpur P.S. Case No.22 of 2001 dated 09.04.2001was registered for the offence under sections 323, 324, 307/34 of IPC and after completion of investigation, charge-sheet was submitted against all the above named accused persons for the aforesaid offences. After taking cognizance, the case was committed to the court of Sessions where S.C. Nos.67 of 2001/137 of 2001 was registered. The appellants did not plead guilty and claimed to be tried. After conclusion of trial, the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence was passed, which has been assailed in this appeal.

3. Learned counsel for the appellants assailing the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence has vehemently argued that admittedly, there was land dispute between the parties and the genesis of occurrence is dispute about cutting down of two bamboo trees from the common land. The appellants have also lodged a case against the informant party of this case for the same day of occurrence. This case was a counter blast to that case. It is further submitted that even if the entire evidence of prosecution be taken to be admitted on its face value, no offence under section 307 of IPC is constituted at all. There was exchange of assault from both sides and the case and counter case were also instituted. It is further submitted that P.W.7 is the doctor, who has examined the injured, Loben Murmu, and found one lacerated wound on the left mandibular region 1” x ¼” X muscle deep and one small abrasion on the right elbow. Both the injuries were simple in nature and caused by hard and blunt substance.

The next injured is the informant, namely, Sanatan Murmu