Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW
Narendra Kumar Johari, J.
Daya Ram and others - Appellants
Versus
State of U.P. - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 177 of 2002
Decided On : 01-03-2023

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Sri Ajit Kumar Singh, Advocate
For the Respondent: Sri Pradeep Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel

The main legal point established in the judgment is that the intention of the accused in a criminal act may be deduced from circumstances and the nature of injuries caused, and it is not essential that bodily injury capable of causing death should have been inflicted to justify a conviction under Section 307 IPC.

Headnote:
Section 307 IPC - Attempt to Murder - [Daya Ram and others] - [Sections 307/34 and 323/34 IPC] - The court discussed the provisions of Section 307 IPC and emphasized that to justify the conviction under Section 307 IPC, it is not essential that bodily injury capable of causing death should have been inflicted. The court highlighted that the intention of the accused may be deduced from other circumstances and may even be ascertained without any reference to actual injuries. The judgment also emphasized that the nature of injuries actually caused may often give considerable assistance in determining the intention of the accused. The court concluded that the accused persons did not have the intention to kill the victim, and therefore, altered the conviction under Section 307 IPC to Section 326 IPC.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved an altercation between the informant and the accused persons over unpaid labor charges, leading to an attack on the informant and his brother by the accused persons with weapons. The accused persons were convicted under Sections 307/34 IPC for the attack.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the accused persons did not have the intention to kill the victim, and therefore, altered the conviction under Section 307 IPC to Section 326 IPC. The court also considered the age and ailments of the appellants and reduced their sentence to the period already undergone, while also ordering them to pay compensation to the victim.
Issues: The key issues included assessing the intention of the accused in the attack and determining the appropriate conviction under the relevant sections of the IPC.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that the intention of the accused may be deduced from other circumstances and may even be ascertained without any reference to actual injuries. It also highlighted that the nature of injuries actually caused may often give considerable assistance in determining the intention of the accused.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed partly, and the sentence was modified to the period already undergone. The appellants were also ordered to pay compensation to the victim.

JUDGMENT :

1. The present appeal has been filed by appellant Daya Ram and others under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C. against the judgement and order dated 5.2.2002 passed by the Special/Additional District and Sessions Judge (E.C. Act) Hardoi in Sessions Trial No. 790 of 1997 (State Vs. Daya Ram and others) arising out of Case Crime No. 176 of 1994 under Sections 307/34 and 323/34 IPC, P.S. Pihani, District Hardoi by which the trial court has acquitted the accused persons Dayaram, Raju and Suresh from the charges of offence under Section 323/34 of IPC but convicted and sentenced them to undergo ten years Rigorous Imprisonment each for the offence under Sections 307/34 IPC.

2. Filtering out unnecessary details, the prosecution case in brief is that on 7.8.1994 the informant, Ramautar had ploughed the field of Dayaram on rent and his payment of labour charge was due. On 9.8.1994 when the informant, Ramautar had gone to Dayaram for the demand of his due labour charge, Dayaram refused to pay the same, consequently, an altercation took place between them. On the same date, i.e. on 9.8.1994 when informant Ramautar along with his brother Parsuram was grazing his animals on field, at about 3:30 PM ,accused persons Daya Ram, Raju and Suresh reached there. They were having the weapons 'kanta', stick (lathi), 'tamancha' (country made pistol) in their hands and by abusing the brother of informant, they attacked on him by stick (lathi) and 'kanta'. On hue and cry, the witnesses Naresh and Vinod who were working in their nearby fields exhorting the attackers ran towards the place of occurrence. Seeing them, the accused persons Dayaram, Raju and Suresh firing with country made pistol, fled towards east. Parsuram had received serious injuries in the occurrence. The informant, Ramautar gave a written information of the occurrence in the police station concerned on 9.8.1994 at 18:20 PM.

3. On the basis of above written application, the first information report of the occurrence under Sections 323, 504 and 307 IPC was lodged by the police station concerned against the accused persons vide Crime No. 176 of 1994. The injured Parsuram and Ramautar were medically examined at P.S. Pihani. The X-ray of injured Parsuram was conducted at District Hospital, Hardoi.

4. The investigating officer, after conclusion of investigation, submitted the charge sheet against accused persons Daya Ram, Raju and Suresh under Sections 307, 323, 325 and 504 IPC.

5. Learned Trial Court after committal of the case framed charges under Sections 307 read with Section 34, 323 read with Section 34 IPC against accused persons who abjured and denied the charges, pleaded not guilty and requested for trial.

6. In the trial, on behalf of prosecution, statements of witnesses Parsuram as PW-1, Naresh as PW-2, Vinod as PW-3, Dr. S.C. Rastogi as PW-4, Dr. O.N. Srivastava as PW-5, Head Constable Tirthraj Yadav as PW-6, Sudhakar Mishara as PW-7 and Ramautar as PW-8 were recorded.

7. After completion of prosecution evidence, statements of accused persons were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. in which they denied the prosecution case and stated that they have been falsely implicated in the case by informant due to previous enmity. The evidence is false.

8. Learned Trial Court after hearing the argument and considering all the evidence on record, convicted the accused persons Daya Ram, Raju and Suresh under Sections 307 read with Section 34 IPC and sentenced them accordingly. Against the said conviction and sentence order, accused-appellants preferred the present appeal.

9. It has been argued by learned counsel for appellants that learned Trial Court has materially erred in convicting the accused persons for the offence under Section 307 read with Section 34 IPC. The prosecution story is highly doubtful. There were substantial discrepancies in the evidence of prosecution. The witness PW-8, Ramautar who was the informant of the case and the alleged eye witness PW-3 Vinod, had not supported the prosecut