Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
B. K. SHARMA
ROHTAS - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH - Respondents
Criminal Appeal 522 Of 1981
Decided On : 07/29/1999
ATTEMPT TO MURDER - SECTION 307, INDIAN PENAL CODE - INTERPRETATION - SINGLE SHOT FIRED CAUSING SIMPLE INJURY - INTENTION TO KILL NOT ESTABLISHED - OFFENCE UNDER SECTION 324, INDIAN PENAL CODE HELD TO BE MADE OUT.
Fact of the Case:
The accused-appellant, Rohtash, was convicted under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for attempting to murder Tara Singh by firing a single shot at him, causing simple injury. The prosecution alleged that Rohtash had a motive to kill Tara Singh due to previous disputes and that he had threatened him earlier. The accused-appellant denied the charges and claimed that Tara Singh was injured while trying to apprehend a thief at his tube-well.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the accused-appellant had indeed fired the shot that injured Tara Singh, but held that the facts established did not constitute the offence of attempt to murder under Section 307 IPC. The court noted that only a single shot was fired, resulting in a simple injury, and that there was no evidence to suggest that the accused-appellant intended to kill Tara Singh. The court also considered the fact that the accused-appellant had been in custody for a significant period of time and that sending him to jail after a long gap would do more harm than good.
Issues: 1. Whether the facts established constituted the offence of attempt to murder under Section 307 IPC or only the offence of causing simple injury under Section 324 IPC. 2. Whether the sentence imposed on the accused-appellant was appropriate.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the offence under Section 307 IPC was not made out as the accused-appellant's act did not amount to an attempt to eliminate Tara Singh. The court relied on the fact that only a single shot was fired, resulting in a simple injury, and that there was no evidence to suggest that the accused-appellant intended to kill Tara Singh. The court also considered the fact that the accused-appellant had been in custody for a significant period of time and that sending him to jail after a long gap would do more harm than good.
Final Decision: The court partly allowed the appeal, altering the conviction from Section 307 IPC to Section 324 IPC and reducing the sentence of imprisonment to the period already undergone. The court also enhanced the fine amount from Rs. 200 to Rs. 6,000, with a direction to pay Rs. 4,000 to the injured victim.
( 1 ) THIS is an appeal against the judgment and order dated 26-2-1981 passed by Sri Ikramul Bari, the then IIIrd Addl. Sessions Judge, Bijnor in S. T. No. 317 of 1980, whereby he convicted the accused-appellant Rohtak of the offence 307, I. P. C. and sentenced him to undergo R. I. for a period of 7 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 200. 00 and in default of payment of fine, to suffer R. I. for a period of 3 months.
( 2 ) THE prosecution story is that Rohtash accused-appellant and his brother Anand had encroached upon the Kharanja of the Gaon Sabha in village Jalalpur Turk P. S. Nahtaur, District Bijnor by constructing a platform and had dismantled a Gram Panchayat platform, that Tara Singh injured P. W. 3 who was the Gram Pradhan had initiated proceedings under Section 133, Cr. P. C. , that in consequence the platform was removed and Rohtash accused had to undertake to reconstruct the platform of the Gram Panchayat, that Rohtash had threatened Tara Singh injured with killing for initiating and pursuing the action, that co-accused Chandrapal is uncle of Rohtash, that he (Chandrapal) had ploughed the land reserved for Kuris in the village, that Tara Singh injured had initiated action against him (Chandrapal) in the Tehsil and he was forced to vacate the land, that co-accused Chandra Pal and accused-appellant Rohtash both entertained animosity towards Tara Singh injured, that on 12-12-1979 at about 8. 30 a. m. Tara Singh injured was sitting on a cot on the Chabutra in front of his Baithak, and on the same cot his father Shyam Singh, his uncle Girdhari Singh and one Hori Singh of another village were also sitting, that accused-appellant Rohtash and co-accused Chandra Pal who were wrapped in blankets-approached the platform of Tara Singh injured from the southern Rasta, that they took a turn towards West on the North Eastern corner of the platform of Tara Singh injured that on reaching behind Tara Singh injured Rohtash accused-appellant whipped out a single barrel gun and immediately fired at Tara Singh and injured him, that accused-appellant Rohtash and co-accused Chandra Pal thereafter fled towards the jungle. The prosecution claimed that Ganda Singh P. W. 4 saw the occurrence from his door.
( 3 ) THE F. I. R. of this case was lodged at the police station by Pritam Singh informant P. W. 5, the same day at 9. 15 a. m. on the basis of which a case under Section 307, I. P. C. was registered. The medical examination of Tara Singh injured was made by Dr. Vijai Kumar, Emergency Duty Officer, District Hospital, Bijnor on 12-12-1979 at 10. 00 a. m. He found the following injuries on his person;"injuries : 1. One circular gun shot wound 1/2 cm x 1/2 cm x depth could not be ascertained, on the back on Rt. side near midline and margins irregular and inverted, one pellet lying in the floor of wound. Blackening about 1 cm size around this wound. Wound is 8 cm below the spine of Rt. scapula. Wound of entry. 2. Abrasion 1 cm x 1 cm size with one blister, on Rt. side and 3. 5 cm above and to right of injury No. 1. "
( 4 ) INJURIES were kept under observation. X-ray was advised. The duration was fresh. X-ray of chest revealed five rounded radio opaque shadow of metallic density in medial part of right lower zone by the side of shadow of spine. Boney cage is normal, lung fields and cesto phremic angles are clear.
( 5 ) AT the trial, ocular testimony was given by Tara Singh injured P. W. 3, and Genda Singh P. W. 4. Pritam Singh, informant P. W. 5 claimed that his house was in immediate vicinity, that he heard the sound of shot and came out from his Dehlij and saw Tara Singh in his injured condition and saw the accused-appellant and co-accused Chandrapal running towards West and that out of them Rohtash accused-appellant was carrying a single barrel gun in his hand and that the witnesses named Rohtash accused-appellant as the assailant who shot the fire on the injured.
( 6 ) APART from the ocular testimony and the medical evidence, the
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
