Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
SURESH KUMAR GUPTA, J.
Anil Kumar Singh @ Pappu – Appellant
Versus
The State of U.P. – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 1085 of 2000
Decided On : 10-05-2023
Section 307 IPC - Attempt to Murder - [IPC Section 324, IPC Section 307] - The court discussed the legal provisions of Section 324 and Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and their interpretations. It highlighted the importance of mens rea or intention in determining the offence under Section 307 IPC and emphasized the need to consider the nature of the weapon used, the manner in which it is used, motive for the crime, severity of the blow, and the part of the body where the injury is inflicted to determine the intention. The court referred to precedents such as Kundan Singh vs. State of Punjab, Merambhai Punjabhai Khachar and Others vs. State of Gujarat, and Ramesh vs. State of U.P. to support its decision to convict the appellant under Section 324 IPC instead of Section 307 IPC.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved the appellant's conviction under Section 307 IPC for causing injury to the victim with a knife. The prosecution relied on the testimony of witnesses and medical evidence to prove the charges. The trial court found the appellant guilty and convicted him under Section 307 IPC, leading to the filing of the appeal.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the injury inflicted did not satisfy the requirements of Section 307 IPC and instead convicted the appellant under Section 324 IPC. It also considered the appellant's age and the time elapsed since the incident in deciding the sentence, ultimately granting him probation and reducing the sentence to the period already undergone.
Issues: The key issues included the nature and severity of the injury, the intention of the appellant, and the appropriate legal provisions to be applied in the case.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the interpretation of the legal provisions under Section 324 and Section 307 of the IPC, as well as the precedents cited to support the conviction under Section 324 IPC instead of Section 307 IPC. The court also considered the appellant's age and the time elapsed since the incident in determining the sentence and granting probation.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed on the point of conviction and partly allowed on the point of sentence. The appellant was directed to be released on probation under Section 4 of the U.P. of the Probation of Offenders Act with stipulated conditions, and a compensation of Rs. 50,000 was awarded to the injured.
JUDGMENT :
SURESH KUMAR GUPTA, J.
1. This appeal has been filed against the judgment and order dated 28.11.2000 passed by XIth Additional Sessions Judge, Faizabad in Sessions Trial No. 807 of 1997 arising out of crime no. 526 of 1997 Police Station-Purakalandar, District-Faizabad whereby the appellant has been convicted under Section 307 I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years and to pay a fine of Rs. 15,000/- and in default of payment of fine two years simple imprisonment.
2. Brief facts of the case emerges from the F.I.R. is that on 1.9.1997 at about 7:30 p.m. Krishna Kumar, son of complainant Ramdeen Yadav, resident of Bahad Village-Palia Goa, Police Station-Purakalandar, District-Faizabad went for defecation to his field at the east of his village. At that time, one hearing the hue and cry, Ramdeen Yadav and one another villagers-Ram Naresh, who were returning after defecation on the same way at the same direction, flushed the torch and ran away. In the light of the torch both of them saw that accused persons-Sanjai Singh and Jangbahadur caught hold Krishna Kumar, S/o Ramdeen and another accused-Anil Kumar @ Pappu Singh was inflicting injury by knife to Krishna Kumar. When with shouting Ramdeen along with Ram Naresh ran to his son then the accused persons fled away from the spot after leaving Krishna Kumar. The written report Exbt. Ka-1 has been scribed by Ram Pratap Yadav and then the F.I.R. has been lodged on 8:15 p.m. as Case crime no. 526 of 1997 under Section 324 I.P.C.
3. Investigation of this case was entrusted to the investigating officer. During course of investigation, he recorded the statement of the complainant, witnesses and the injured-Krishna Kumar. On the same day the spot inspection was done and injury of the injured Krishna Kumar was also examined. On the basis of injury, the case was converted under Section 307 I.P.C.
4. In order to prove his case, the prosecution examined following prosecution six witnesses:
(ii) PW-2/Ramdeen, who is father of the injured-Krishna Kumar and also eye-witness, has supported the entire version of prosecution.
(iii) PW-3/Ram Naresh, who is villagers of the village of the injured-Krishna Kumar and supported the version made by the injured-Krishna Kumar.
(iv) PW-4/Constable Kanti Kanti Kumar Singh, who proved the chik F.I.R. Exbt.Ka-2 and entry of the General Diary as Exbt.Ka-3.
(v) PW-5/Dr. K.N. Kaushal, who has examined the injury of the injured-Krishna Kumar on 1.9.1997 at 8:20 p.m. and following injuries were found:
(a) Incised wound 5x4 c.m. on the right side of neck 5.5 c.m. just below the year and the blood was oozing.
(b) Incised wound 2 c.m. x 1 c.m. skin deep was present at the right jaw.
(c) Incised wound 2.5 c.m. x 1 c.m. muscle deep present on left of back scapula.
(d) PW-5-Dr. K.N. Kaushal opined that tll the injuries were fresh and were kept under observation. As the condition of the injured/patient was not good, therefore, he was admitted in the hospital.
PW-5/Dr. K.N. Kaushal in his cross examination stated that injury, which had been caused to the injured, may be caused by sharp side of the arm and that was not stab wound. After examining the injury he could not attend the patient. It has also been submitted that injury report was prepared in accident register because the injured was not sent by the police station.
(vi) PW-6/Jagdish Singh, who is Investigating Officer, has proved site plan as Exbt. Ka-5 and charge sheet as Exbt. Kas-6.
Thus, in order to prove its case, the prosecution relies upon oral testimony of PW-1 to PW
The main legal point established in the judgment is the consideration of the nature of the injury and the circumstances of the case in altering the conviction under Section 307 I.P.C. to Section 324/....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of Exception 4 of Section 300 IPC to determine culpable homicide not amounting to murder, and the extension of the benefit of proba....
Conviction for attempt to murder converted to causing hurt due to lack of intention and evidence; benefit of the First Offender granted as no previous criminal history existed.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the significance of intention or knowledge in determining the nature of the offence under Section 307 I.P.C., and the court's emphasis on the la....
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
