The intention or knowledge of the accused is the crucial factor in distinguishing between an attempt to commit murder under Section 307 IPC and causing simple hurt under Section 324 IPC. The nature of the act, the circumstances surrounding the incident, and the consequences of the act must be considered to determine the accused's intention or knowledge.

Headnote:
ATTEMPT TO COMMIT MURDER - SECTION 307, INDIAN PENAL CODE - INTERPRETATION AND APPLICATION - DISTINCTION BETWEEN SECTIONS 307 AND 324, INDIAN PENAL CODE - INTENTION OR KNOWLEDGE AS ESSENTIAL ELEMENTS - INFERENCE FROM CIRCUMSTANCES - SEVERITY OF SENTENCE.
Fact of the Case:

Krishna, the appellant, was convicted under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for attempting to murder Vinod Kumar by firing a country-made pistol at him, causing multiple firearm injuries. The prosecution's case was that Krishna, at the behest of Shailendra alias Pappu, fired upon Vinod Kumar due to a long-standing dispute between their families. The defense argued that Krishna was falsely implicated and that the witnesses did not know him.
Finding of the Court:

The court found that the prosecution had established a reliable case against Krishna. The testimony of two eyewitnesses, Sudhir Kumar (Vinod Kumar's brother) and Vinod Kumar himself, was found to be consistent and credible. The court also considered the medical evidence, which confirmed the nature and extent of the injuries sustained by Vinod Kumar.
Issues: 1. Whether the evidence presented by the prosecution was reliable and sufficient to prove Krishna's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. 2. Whether the act of firing a country-made pistol at Vinod Kumar constituted an attempt to commit murder under Section 307 IPC or merely caused simple hurt under Section 324 IPC. 3. Whether the sentence of five years rigorous imprisonment imposed on Krishna was excessive.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the testimony of the two eyewitnesses, Sudhir Kumar and Vinod Kumar, was reliable and credible. Their statements were consistent with each other, with the medical evidence, and with the circumstances of the incident. The court also noted that Krishna did not claim any identification, which further supported the witnesses' testimony. 2. The court distinguished between Sections 307 and 324 IPC, emphasizing that the intention or knowledge of the accused is crucial in determining the offense. The court held that the nature of the act, the circumstances surrounding the incident, and the consequences of the act must be considered to determine the accused's intention or knowledge. In this case, the court found that Krishna intended to cause death or had the knowledge that his act was imminently dangerous and likely to cause death, fulfilling the requirements of Section 307 IPC. 3. The court upheld the sentence of five years rigorous imprisonment, finding it to be appropriate considering the premeditated and daring nature of the act, which was committed in front of a public office.
Final Decision: The court dismissed Krishna's appeal, upholding his conviction and sentence for the offense under Section 307 IPC.

G. B. SINGH, J.

This is an appeal against the conviction and sentence of Krishna-appellant for the offence under Section 307, I. P. C.

2. The case of the prosecution was that Krishna, appellant on 29-11-1983 at about 4. 30 p. m. in front of the office of Executive Engineer Hydel Depart ment, Sultanpur Police Station Kotwali, Sultanpur fired country made pistol upon Vinod Kumar and thereby caused several lire arm injuries to him. On the alarm raised Krishna and his associates ran away. The occurrence was seen by several persons present on the spot. It was also the case of the prosecution that Jagannath Lal father of Vinod Kumar injured, on one hand, and Avanendra Pratap Singh and Surendra Pratap Singh, on the other, are on ligitating terms since long. Jagannath Lal won some of the cases against the two persons on account of which they were harbouring ill-will against him and his sons Vinod Kumar and Sudhir Kumar. Vinod Kumar is a Revenue Clerk in the office of the Executive Engineer Hydel Department, Sultanpur whereas his elder brother Sudhir Kumar is Lekhpal in Tahsil Sadar. Shailendra alias Pappu son of Surendra Pratap Singh is a bad

character. Krishna accused is his associate. Krishna attempted to commit murder by firing country made pistol at the instance of Shailendra alias Pappu. On 29-11-1985 at about 4. 30 p. m. Sudhir Kumar had gone to the office of Vinod Kumar inform him that he was going on portal and so he would not go to home. Vinod Kumar had come out of the office to leave his brother and while proceeding towards north from the office with that object, Krishna fired country made pistol upon him.

3. The first information report was lodged by Vinod Kumar injured at the Police Station Kotwali, Sultanpur on the same day at 5. 00 p. m. On that report case under Section 307,i. P. C. was registered and Vinod Kumar was sent to Hospital, Sultanpur for medical examination. His injuries were examined there on the same day at 5. 20 p. m. by Dr. R. S. Agarwal (P. W. 3 ). He found following injuries on his person :

(1) Multiple punctured wound over the whole of face, extending from right ear upto left side of ear 4 cm. in front of it. Both side of forehead, all over size, 1 cm. X. 1 cm. x skin to skin deep upto 3x3 cm.

(2) A punctured wound in left eye 4 o clock position just adjacent to

Iris, with sub-conjunctival haemorrhage on left eye on medical aspect, with echymosis of both eye lids on left side, over 4 cm. X 2. 5 cm.

(3) Echymosis of both eye lid right side over the upper eye lid 4cm.

X 1. 5 cm. with sub-conjunctival haemorrhage on medical aspect of right eye.

(4) Multiple punctured wound on both lips with lacerated wound on

the upper lip inner aspect, midline, 1. 5 cm x. 5 cm x tissue deep. Size of punctured wound was. 1 x. l X mucous membrane deep.

(5) Lacerated wound of the gum left side upper incisor tooth absent,. 5cmx. 5 cm. lacerated wound with bleeding present. , 2nd upper incisor left side was slightly movable.

(6) Lacerated wound on the tongue left side, laterally. 5cm. medical to

left side of tongue margin. Size 2 cm. X-5 cm x. 3 cm. , fresh bleeding present.

(7) Multiple punctured wound on the hard and soft palate present all

over, size. 1 x. Ix tissue deep.

All the injuries except Nos. 5 and 6 were kept under observation and X-ray was advised. Injury No. 6 was found simple. Injury No. 5 was referred to Dental Surgeon as one of the incisor was found missing. According to Dr. R. S. Agarwal all the injuries were caused by gun shot and were fresh at the time of examination.

4. The case was investigated by S. I. Shyam Narain Singh (P. W. 7 ). He was not present at the Police Station when the First Information Report was lodged. The papers were therefore, received by him at Police Outpost, Lachmanpur. He at once proceeded to the place of incident, examined Sudhir Kumar Srivastava and Ram Tilak Singh witnesses. He then inspected the place of incident and prepared its site- plan. He found blood stains at the place of

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

Judicial Analysis

1989 Supreme(All) 202

HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABADG.B.Singh KRISHNA VersusSTATE OF U P Decided On : 28 March 1989 Crl. Appeal No. 642 of 1989

Judicial Analysis

HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
G.B.Singh
KRISHNA
Versus
STATE OF U P
Decided On : 28 March 1989
Crl. Appeal No. 642 of 1989