Back
1984 Supreme(All) 175
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
I. P. Singh J.
MADOO SINGH - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF U.P. - Respondents
Criminal Appeal 3261 Of 1978
Decided On : 04/03/1984
V.P.Srivastava
The intention to kill is an essential ingredient of the offence under section 307 IPC. In the absence of such intention, the offence may be reduced to section 324 IPC if simple hurts are caused by a firearm.
Headnote:
ATTEMPT TO MURDER - SECTION 307 IPC - CONVICTION AND SENTENCE - EVIDENCE - SUFFICIENCY - INJURIES CAUSED - NATURE AND EXTENT - INTENTION TO KILL - ABSENCE - OFFENCE UNDER SECTION 324 IPC - ESTABLISHED.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant was convicted under section 307 IPC for firing a country-made pistol at the complainant during a heated argument in a panchayat. The complainant sustained simple injuries on his thighs.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the appellant did not have the intention to kill the complainant as the injuries caused were simple in nature and only one shot was fired. The court also noted that the appellant had a criminal record and did not deserve leniency.
Issues: 1. Whether the appellant had the intention to kill the complainant? 2. Whether the appellant was guilty of the offence under section 307 IPC or section 324 IPC?
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the appellant was not guilty of the offence under section 307 IPC as he did not have the intention to kill the complainant. The court relied on the nature and extent of the injuries caused, the absence of premeditation, and the lack of enmity between the parties. The court held that the appellant was guilty of the offence under section 324 IPC as he had caused simple hurts by a firearm.
Final Decision: The court set aside the conviction and sentence under section 307 IPC and convicted the appellant under section 324 IPC to one year RI.
( 1 ) MANDOO Singh, convict appellant, has preferred this appeal against the judgment and order of Sri V. M. Kher. IV Additional- Sessions Judge. Etah, dated 27/10/1978 in S. T. No. 213 of 1976-State v. Mandoo Singh convicting and sentencing him under section 307 I. P. C. to seven years RI.
( 2 ) THE prosecution case is that about four days before the occurrence of 20/1/1975 one Dan Sahai Garhariya r/o village Tunda P. S. Anwapur, district Etah, lost his he-goat. He suspected that it was stolen away by one Luxman Jatav of village Samaspur Degri. On 20. 1. 1975 a Panchayat was held at the house of Pancham Pradhan in, village Samaspur at about 1 P. M. This Panchayat was attended by Dan Sahai accompanied by Khub Chandra complainant (P. W. 1), Zalim Singh and Karan Singh on the one side and by Luxman Jatav accompanied by Mandoo Singh accused on the other side. Many others were also in the said Panchayat. Dan. Singh had placed the price of said he- goat at Rs. 100/. However, in the said Pancbayat Mandoo Singh accused suggested to Dan Sahai to accept Rs. 10/ only from Luxman Jatav. Dan Sahai remonstrated that the said offer was too low and it should at least be Rs. 50/ -. Mandoo Singh accused b came enraged. Khub Chandra complainant taking side d Dan Sahai told Mandoo Singh accused Dot to show trapper. At this Mandoo Singh accused started hurling abuses at the complainant Khub Chandra. He retorted and told him to slap abusing him. At this Mandoo Singh accused is said to have taken out a country- made pistol from his phent and fire it at Khub Chandra complainant. Its pellets hit on both thighs of the complainant: The accused ran away. The complainant later, on the same day, at 4 P. M. lodged oral F. I. R. at P. S. Anwapur, four miles away from village Shamshapur Degri where the incident had taken place. In the F. I. R. the accused-appellant was named as his assailant having fired one shot from his country-made pistol at him.
( 3 ) THE appellant denied the occurrence and pleaded his false implication in this case at the hands of the complaint and his witnesses in collusion with the police. He did not lead any evidence in defence.
( 4 ) THE prosecution in order to establish their case examined five witnesses including three eyewitnesses. namely, Khub Chandra complainant (P. W. 1), Dan Sahai (P. W. 2) and Malik (P. W. 3 ). The other two are Dr. R. R Sharma (P. W. 4) who medically examined Khub Chandra complainant on 21. 1. 1975 at 3 p. m. He had recorded gunshot wounds of entry under two items one on the right thigh and the other on the left thigh. These wounds were on the inner side of the thighs. These wounds were pellet injuries measuring 2/ 10 cm. X 2/10 cm. On the left thigh there was only one wound of that size but on the right thigh there were 12 such wounds in an area of 12 cm. X 6 cm. All the wounds were simple and were caused by gunshot (firearm ). There was no blackening or tattooing. Margins were inverted at the time of examination. Those injuries were about one day old. The doctor (P. W. 4) bas stated that there could be a margin of six hours either way in the duration of the said injuries. That fits in with the alleged hour of the occurrence.
( 5 ) KHUB Chandra complainant (P. W. 1) in his Examination-in-Chief deposed in line with the prosecution case. He is corroborated on all particulars by Dan Sahai (P. W. 2) and Malik (P. W. 3 ). Of course, Malik (P. W. 3) was not named as such in the F. I. R. but he can be taken to the person included in the team Many other persons were present in the panchayat as mentioned in the f. I. R. Of course, there are minor discrepancies in the statements regarding price of the he-goat discussed in the Panchayat. To me those minor discrepancies are of no consequence and would not demolish the broader frame of the prosecution case. All these witnesses are unanimous in saying that when the complainant Khub Chandra and appellant Mandoo Singh were heated up during Panchayat and we
