1989 Supreme(Ori) 160
High Court Of Orissa
K. P. MOHAPATRA, V. GOPALASWAMY
LAXMIDHAR GANDA - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF ORISSA - Respondent
Criminal Appeal 187 Of 1985
Decided On : 11/16/1989
B.PANDE, N.K.BHOI, S.C.MOHAPATRA, S.PANDA, S.S.DAS
In an attempt to murder, all the elements of murder must exist except the fact of death. An actual intention to commit the particular crime is a necessary element of an attempt to commit crime.
Headnote:
ATTEMPT TO MURDER - SECTION 307, I. P. C. - SECTION 326, I. P. C. - SECTION 333, I. P. C. - CONVICTION AND SENTENCE - MODIFICATION.
Fact of the Case:
The accused, Laxmidhar Ganda, was convicted by the trial court under Section 307, I. P. C. and sentenced to imprisonment for life, and also convicted under Section 333, I. P. C. without any separate sentence. The prosecution alleged that the accused assaulted the Revenue Inspector, Nimai Charan Das, with a Tangia while he was demarcating homestead lands for landless persons, causing grievous injuries.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court found that the accused did assault the Revenue Inspector with a Tangia, causing grievous injuries, but that the prosecution failed to prove that the accused intended to commit murder. The Court held that the accused was guilty of attempt to murder under Section 307, I. P. C., but that the charge under Section 307, I. P. C. must fail due to lack of evidence of intent to kill.
Issues: 1. Whether the accused intended to commit murder when he assaulted the Revenue Inspector? 2. Whether the accused was guilty of attempt to murder under Section 307, I. P. C.? 3. Whether the accused was guilty of causing grievous hurt under Section 326, I. P. C.? 4. Whether the accused was guilty of causing hurt to deter a public servant from his duty under Section 333, I. P. C.?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the accused did not intend to commit murder, as he only gave one blow with the Tangia and it was not given on any vital part of the body of the Revenue Inspector. 2. The Court held that the accused was not guilty of attempt to murder under Section 307, I. P. C., as the prosecution failed to prove the necessary intent to kill. 3. The Court held that the accused was guilty of causing grievous hurt under Section 326, I. P. C., as he caused grievous injuries to the Revenue Inspector with the Tangia. 4. The Court held that the accused was guilty of causing hurt to deter a public servant from his duty under Section 333, I. P. C., as he assaulted the Revenue Inspector while he was performing his duty of demarcating homestead lands.
Final Decision: The High Court convicted the accused under Section 326, I. P. C. and sentenced him to the period of imprisonment already suffered by him. The Court also directed that the accused be released forthwith.
V. GOPALASWAMY, J.
( 1 ) THIS appeal is preferred against the judgement of the learned Sessions Judge, Boudh-Khendamala, Phulbani convicting the accused-appellant under Section 307, I. P. C. and sentencing him thereunder to imprisonment for life and further convicting him under Section 333, I. P. C. without imposing any separate sentence thereunder.
( 2 ) THE prosecution case, briefly stated, is as follows : during the relevant period Nimai Charan Das (PW. 2) was working as the Revenue Inspector of Balaskumpa Revenue Circle. Accused Laxmidhar Ganda was a resident of village Barikumpa, which comes under the revenue circle, Balakumpa. The accused was in possession of a portion of the Government land of Plot No. 927 as an encroacher and consequently there was an encroachment case pending against the accused in respect of the encroached land before the Tahasildar, Phulbani (P. W. 6 ). In village Barikumpa, besides the accused there were several others who were having no homestead land. On 5-1-1985 the Tahasildar (PW. 6) in his camp at Balaskumpa dealt with the encroachment case record of the accused and other records relating to the allotment of homestead lands to the landless persons. As accused was also a person without any homestead land, the Tahasildar ordered that the accused should also be allotted 16r extent of land for his homestead out of the land encroached by him in Plot No. 927, provided he would surrender his possession over the remaining portion of the encroached land in that plot. On 6-1-1985, in pursuance of the oral directions given by the Tahasildar, the Revenue Inspector (P. W. 2) along with his peon Kalicharan Bhoi (P. W. 1) went to the land of plot No. 927 at 10 a. m. and at that time 5 to 6 others, all of whom, including PW. 4, where landless persons, came there and in their presence P. W. 2 was measuring and demarcating plots of an extent of 16 R for being allotted to each of the allottees. At that time the accused armed with a Tangia arrived there and challenging P. W. 2 as to why he was giving away his land to the others, gave a blow with the Tangia on the left side of the back of P. W. 2 and fled away from the place, and as a result of that blow P. W. 2 sustained a bleeding injury and fell down unconscious. PW. 1 gave a written report about the occurrence to the Officer-in-Charge, Khajuripada Police Station (P. W. 7) and the same was treated as the first information report (Ext. 1) in the case and on the basis of that first information report, the police proceeded with the investigation of the case and submitted charge-sheet against the accused under Ss. 307 and 333, I. P. C.
( 3 ) THE plea of the accused, as disclosed from his examination under Section 313, Cr. P. C. , is that as he refused to give the Revenue inspector (P. W. 2), the bribe demanded by him for recording the encroached portion of the land in his name, this case has been falsely foisted against him. No witness was examined in support of his plea.
( 4 ) THE prosecution has examined in all seven witnesses to prove its case. P. W. 1 is a peon working under the Revenue Inspector and on the relevant morning he claims to have gone to the land of Plot No. 927 along with the Revenue Inspector and he is also the informant in the case. P. W. 2 alleges that he was injured by the accused by means of a Tangia. P. W. 3 is the Medical Officer, who examined P. W. 2 regarding the injuries. P. W. 4 was one of the persons, who claims to have gone to the scene of occurrence for the purpose of demarcation of his homestead land. P. W. 5 is a witness to the seizure of M. O. I. P. W. 6 is the Tahasildar, who states to have given oral directions to the Revenue Inspector for demarcating the land of Plot No. 927. P. W. 7 is the Investigating Officer in the case.
( 5 ) THE evidence of the Revenue Inspector (P. W. 2) shows that on 6-1-1985, on the oral directions of the Tahasildar, Phulbani, he went to village Borikumpa for demarcating the homestead land for the