For constituting offence u/s 307 intention to cause death not necessary to prove.

The Court delivered the following Judgments: Raman Nayar, Ag. C.J.-

The accused person in this case, Sreedharan, aged 42, was tried by the Additional Assistant Sessions Judge, Kottayam, on charges under section 307 and 324 of the Indian Penal Code. The charge under section 307 related to an assault with a knife on one Balakrishnan, who has been examined as P.W. 1 at the trial, and that under section 324 to an assault on Balakrishnan's brother, Karunakaran, who has been examined as P.W. 2. The learned Judge came to the conclusion that the mens rea necessary for an offence under section 307 had not been made out-he seems to have thought that a clear intention to cause death was necessary-and, in doing so, he relied on two decisions by a single Judge of this Court in Moidu v. State of Kerala T(1967) K.L.T. 223.T and Issac v. State of Kerala, T(1967) K.L.T. 689. Ta third, more or less on the same lines, Krishnan v. Abdulla, T(1968) K.L.T. 929: (1968) MLJ. (Crl.) 790.Thas been brought to our notice in the course of the hearing. He found the accused guilty under section 326 , Indian Penal Code for the assault on P.W. 1-even so he had to rely on P.W. 1's detention in hospital for over 20 days for holding that the injury, a disembowelling incited wound, was grievous¡-and under section 324 , Indian Penal Code for the assault on P.W. 2; and he sentenced the accused to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 18 months for the former offence and for four months for the latter, the sentences to run concurrently. In Calendar Revision it was observed that the offence seemed to be really one under section 307 , Indian Penal Code but, obviously in view of the prohibition in sub- section (4) of section 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code against the conversion of an acquittal into a conviction, and the fact that it was possible to impose an adequate sentence for the offence without altering the finding of the Court below, notice was issued to the accused only to show cause against enhancement of his sentence-however at the hearing, the propriety of the acquittal of the charge under section 307 , Indian Penal Code, and of the conviction actually recorded has been fully canvassed by both sides. The Revision Case came on for hearing before a single Judge of this Court. He was of the view that the decision relied upon by the Court below required reconsideration, and, in that view, he referred the case to a Division Bench-that is how the case is now before us. Meanwhile, the accused had appealed against his conviction to the Court of Session. That appeal has been withdrawn to this Court and has been heard along with the Revision Case.

The case is really a very simple case. At about 7 p.m. on the 23rd March, 1967, when the accused was in the tea-shop of one Kochu Mohammed with his newly married daughter and son-in-law, a verbal altercation arose between the accused on the one side and P.W. 2, who was also in the shop, on the other. According to the accused, but not according to P.W. 2, the latter used very abusive language. However that might be, the accused was so incensed that he beat P.W. 2. The shop-keeper, Kochu Mohammed, and P.Ws. 3 and 4, who were also there, intervened and sent the accused and P.W. 2 away in different directions. P.W. 2 had not gone far when he met his brother, P.W. 1, and complained to him of what the accused had done. P.W. 1 tried to pacify P.W. 2 saying that they could question the accused about it the next day. The accused apparently overheard this, and he rushed up to P.Ws. 1 and 2 pushing aside P.W. 4 who tried to stop him, shouting that there was no need to put off the matter Then ignoring P.W. 1's expostulations the accused drew the knife M.O. 1 (a sharp pointed knife with a blade five inches long) from his waist and stabbed P.Ws. 1 and 2 with it one after the other. The stab on P.W. 1 was in the abdomen and as the medical evidence shows it penetrated the abdominal cavity, cut the small intestines in as many as four pla