Back
Allahbad High Court
S.D.KHARE,YASHODANANDAN
Bhagwan Din - Appellant
Versus
State - Respondent
Decided On : 08/03/1966
ATTEMPT TO COMMIT MURDER - SECTION 307 IPC - INTENTION TO CAUSE DEATH - BURDEN OF PROOF - PRESUMPTION FROM USE OF FIREARM - SECTION 324 IPC - OFFENCE UNDER SECTION 307 IPC NOT MADE OUT - CONVICTION UNDER SECTION 324/34 IPC.
Fact of the Case:
The appellants were convicted for rioting and making attempts to commit the murders of Murlidhar and Phakkar by causing gunshot injuries to them. The prosecution alleged that the appellants, armed with firearms and lathis, attacked Murlidhar and Phakkar, causing injuries to both of them. The appellants denied the charges and claimed false implication due to enmity.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the prosecution witnesses were reliable and that the motive for the crime, as stated by Murlidhar, was plausible. However, the court held that the mere use of firearms by the appellants did not necessarily establish an intention to cause death, as required for an offence under Section 307 IPC. The court further found that the injuries caused to Murlidhar and Phakkar were not on vital parts of their bodies, indicating that the appellants did not intend to cause fatal injuries.
Issues: 1. Whether the use of firearms by the appellants was sufficient to establish an intention to cause death, as required for an offence under Section 307 IPC. 2. Whether the injuries caused to Murlidhar and Phakkar were sufficient to establish an attempt to commit murder.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the mere use of firearms by the appellants did not necessarily establish an intention to cause death, as required for an offence under Section 307 IPC. The court relied on the provisions of Section 307 IPC and Section 324 IPC, which distinguish between offences involving the use of firearms and those involving an intention to cause death. 2. The court further held that the injuries caused to Murlidhar and Phakkar were not on vital parts of their bodies, indicating that the appellants did not intend to cause fatal injuries. The court relied on the medical evidence, which showed that the injuries were superficial and could have been caused by a single shot from a firearm fired from a distance of about 12 feet or more.
Final Decision: The court convicted the appellants under Section 324/34 IPC for causing hurt with a dangerous weapon, but acquitted them of the charges under Section 307 IPC for attempt to commit murder. The court also dismissed the revision application filed by some of the appellants and their sureties, but allowed the revision application filed by others and set aside the order forfeiting their bonds.
S. D. KHARE, J. :- This is an appeal by Bhagwan Din and nine others, all of whom have been convicted for the offence of rioting and making attempts to commit the murders of Murlidhar and Phakkar (P. Ws. 1 and 2) by causing gunshot injuries to them. It first came up for hearing before a learned single Judge of this Court, who referred it to a larger Bench. Connected with it is Criminal Revision No. 1780 of 1965 filed by four of the appellants and their sureties.
2. The occurrence is of 26th February, 1963, and it took place in the village of Bisra within police circle Bisra, district Banda, Phakkar (P. W. 2) had, at about 6 a.m. gone towards Banha Talab to ease himself and Murlidhar (P. W. 1) had also gone that very side to bring green fodder for his cattle. After Phakkar had eased himself and had proceeded in the company of Murlidhar towards Sarju Dube's field the ten appellants, out of whom Ram Kumar was armed with a pistol. Shivbali and Ram Kishun were armed with guns and the remaining seven appellants with lathis, rushed out from their hiding place. Phakkar tried to run away from there. Bhagwan Din (appellant) exhorted others by saying "maro" which could either mean "cause injuries" or "kill". The accused persons, who were holding lathis, did not go near Phakkar and Murlidhar who were at a distance of only about 18 or 19 paces from them. However, all the three accused persons, who had firearms with them, fired their weapons. Shivbali and Ram Kishun caused injuries to Phakkar, while Ram Kumar, who was armed with a pistol, was responsible for the injuries which Murlidhar suffered. Both the injured raised an alarm which attracted the attention of other villagers who had gone that side to ease themselves and upon their arrival all the assailants made good their escape.
3. The first information report of the occurrence was lodged by Murlidhar (injured) on the same day at 7 a.m. at police station Bisra which is at a distance of four furlongs from the place of occurrence. The motive for the crime, the occurrence as it had taken place and the names of the witnesses were mentioned in it. Both the injured were sent for their medical examination. They were examined by Dr. M. P. Lal (P. W. 11) on the same day at 3 p.m. and the doctor found the following injuries on the two injured persons as a result of his examination:
PHAKKAR
(1) Several pellet injuries of the size 1/5" x 1/5" skin deep on the back side of the left thigh in an area of 8" x 5".
(2) Several pellet injuries of the size 1/5" x 1/6" skin deep on the back of the right thigh in an area of 9" x 4 1/2".
MURLIDHAR
(1) Several pellet injuries of the size 1/6" x 1/6" skin deep on the back of the right thigh in an area of 12" x 6".
(2) Several pellet injuries of the size 1/6" x 1/6" skin deep on the back of the left thigh in an area of 5" x 3".
4. In the opinion of the doctor all the injuries were simple and appeared to be about nine hours old at the time of the examination. They could have been caused with a firearm such as a pistol or gun. The doctor was further of the opinion that the firearm must have been fired from a distance of about 12 feet or more. Since there was some difference in the dimensions of the injuries caused to each of the injured persons the doctor was of the opinion that all the four injuries, two to each of the injured persons, could not be the result of one shot from a firearm. The doctor could not be definite whether the injuries received by Phakkar on the back of his two thighs were by a shot from one firearm or by two shots from two firearms. The doctor was able to extract two pellets from the back of the left thigh of Phakkar and also two pellets from the injuries of Murlidhar. The doctor was also of the opinion that both the injuries of Murlidhar could have been caused with one shot from one firea
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
