SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2021 Supreme(All) 644

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
KARUNESH SINGH PAWAR, J.
Devi Harijan and Another - Appellants
Versus
State of U.P. - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 242 of 2002
Decided On : 20-07-2021

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : Prem Singh, Sushil Kumar Singh.
For the Respondent:Govt. Advocate.

Point of law: In order to attract punishable offence under Section 307 Indian Penal Code, the prosecution is required to prove the intention or knowledge to commit the murder and the actual act of trying to commit murder. The words “such intention” as described under Section 307 Indian Penal Code refers to the meaning “intention” referred under Section 300 Indian penal Code. Thus, intention to cause death, intention to cause such bodily injury which the offender knows it as likely to cause death. The intention to cause such bodily injury, which is sufficient in order to cross the ordinary course of nature to cause death. Therefore, the intention to cause death is essential element to attract the offence of attempt to murder.

Headnote:

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 374 (2) – Indian Penal code, 1860 - Sections 324, 307 and 504 - Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 - Section 4 - Criminal appeal - After the incident the informant went along with his injured father to police station for lodging the First Information Report but instead of lodging the First Information Report the Inspector told the informant to first get his father admitted in hospital then First Information Report could be lodged – Power of court to release certain offenders on probation of good conduct – Under what sections the offender shall be punishable based on circumstances - Whether the appellant no.2 is entitled to get the benefit of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act.

Finding of the court: From careful evaluation of evidence adduced by the prosecution and the material on record, court finds that intention of the accused was only to inflict the injury and that too on PW1 and not on PW2 - It cannot be said that there was any common intention to commit murder. The weapon i.e. the scissor has also been recovered. The size and the shape of the scissor is also not known - Considering the time of attack, the fight which erupted for a trivial issue all of a sudden, as well as the severity of the blow, it is apparent that the accused persons committed the offence punishable under Section 324 alone - As regards the injuries are concerned, there is no evidence on record to show that these injuries could have been fatal for life of the injured or that the injuries were caused by the appellants with intention to kill the injured - It clearly shows that there was no intention of the accused appellants to kill the injured - Conviction of the appellants under Section 307 read with Section 34 IPC cannot be sustained. But, in fact, the appellants are liable to be convicted for the offence punishable under Section 324 IPC - He shall get benefit of Section 4 of Probation of Offenders Act.

Result: Appeal partly allowed.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard learned counsel for the appellants, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

2. The present criminal appeal under Section 374 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 has been filed against the judgment and order dated 8.2.2002 passed by II Additional Sessions Judge, Sultanpur in Sessions Trial No. 134 of 1994 arising out of Case Crime No. 209 of 1993, under Sections 324, 307 and 504 I.P.C., Police Station Lambhua, District Sultanpur, whereby the appellant no.1-Devi Harijan was convicted under Section 307 I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo five years rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs.2000/-and in default of payment to undergo three months additional imprisonment; and appellant no.2-Chauthi Harijan was convicted under Section 307/34 I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo five years rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs.2000/- and in default of payment to undergo three months additional imprisonment.

3. It transpires from the record that the instant appeal filed by appellant no.1-Devi Harijan has been abated vide order dated 17.04.2018 passed by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court.

4. The prosecution case, as per the written report, is that on 13.5.1993, at about 6:00 a.m., the cousin brother of the informant, namely, Devi, was digging onion on the abadi land of the informant and the informant reached there and asked him not to dig his onion but he did not listen him and after abusing him, went to his house and threatened him that I will see you just now. Thereafter, he gone to home and returned with scissor along with appellant no.2-Chauthi with intention to kill him. By that time father of the informant had also reached on the spot, upon which appellant no.2-Chauthi exhorted to kill the informant and caught hold his father while exhorting and appellant no.1-Devi Harijan with intention to kill started hitting his father with scissor, as a consequence of which, his father suffered with lot of wounds from scissor and scissor broke inside the body of his father and his father fell down. On alarm being raised, Jhagai and several other persons of the village reached there and saw the incident and also mediated. Thereafter, the informant took his injured father to the police station, where his report was not lodged and he was asked to first get the medical examination of the injured, then, the report will be lodged. The injured was thereafter medically examined.

5. The injuries of P.W.2 Bansilal was medically examined by Dr. R.P. Singh (P.W.5) of Community Health Center, Lambhua, Sultanpur on 19.5.1993 at 10.20 a.m. Dr. Singh found following injuries on the person of injured Bansilal :-

    “(1) Incised wound at Rt. side of the scalp 3cm x 0.5cm deep x scalp deep fresh bleeding from the wound is present. 11 cm above the Rt. ear margins are sharp fresh bleeding from the wound is present.

(2) Incised wound at Rt. side of the back of chest 1cm x .5cm x muscle deep margins are sharp fresh bleeding from the wound is present.

(3) Incised wound at Rt. side of the back corresponding to medial border of scapula 1cm x (sic) x muscle deep fresh bleeding is present”.

6. P.W.5 Dr. R.P. Singh, in his statement has stated that the injuries could be caused by the scissor on the date and time of the incident. He had advised the injured Bansilal to get the x-ray of his chest be done. Whereupon the injured Bansilal did his x-ray of chest from Radiologist Dr. Subodh Kumar, District Hospital Sultanpur. PW 3 Dr. Subodh Kumar, in his statement has deposed that the x-ray of chest of injured Bansilal was done under his supervision, wherein it has been opined that two radio opaque, metallic triangular seen in chest wall at level of thoralei 2, 3 and 4th spin. It was also found that both christopher angles clear and no bone injury seen. The report of x-ray has been marked as Exhibit Ka 2.

7. It appears that after the incident the informant PW1 Pappu went along with his injured father to police station Lambhua for lodging the First Information Re

        Click Here to Read the rest of this document
        1
        2
        3
        4
        5
        6
        7
        8
        9
        10
        11
        SupremeToday Portrait Ad
        supreme today icon
        logo-black

        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

        qr

        Scan Me!

        India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

        For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

        whatsapp-icon Back to top