2005 Supreme(MP) 1110
High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
S. L. KOCHAR, J.
BHADRIYA - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF MADHYA pradesh - Respondents
Cri. Appeal 1079 Of 2003
Decided On : 11/11/2005
MANISH JAIN, P.NEVALKAR, R.S.SOLANKI
The nature of the injury, intention of the accused, and surrounding circumstances are crucial in determining the appropriate section under the IPC for the offence.
Headnote:
IPC - Offence under S. 307, 307/34 - S. 324/34 - S. 326 - [S. 307, S. 324, S. 326] - The court discussed the nature of the injury, intention of the accused, and the surrounding circumstances to determine the appropriate section under the IPC. The appellants were convicted under S. 326 and S. 324/34 instead of S. 307, 307/34 as the injury was found to be grievous but lacked clear intention to commit murder.
Fact of the Case:
The appellants were convicted for causing injury to the complainant with a bow and arrow. The prosecution's case was based on the testimony of the complainant and medical evidence.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the injury, although grievous, lacked clear intention to commit murder. The appellants were convicted under different sections of the IPC based on the nature of the injury and the surrounding circumstances.
Issues: The main issue was to determine the appropriate section under the IPC for the offence based on the nature of the injury and the intention of the accused.
Ratio Decidendi: The court considered the nature of the injury, motive of the accused, and surrounding circumstances to determine the appropriate section under the IPC.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed in part, and the appellants were convicted under different sections of the IPC. The trial Court was directed to release the appellant No. 1 upon depositing the fine amount, and the appellants Nos. 2 and 3 were directed to deposit the fine amount failing which appropriate proceedings would be initiated against them.
( 3 ) THE learned counsel for appellants have submitted that even if the complete prosecution case is accepted, the offence would not travel more than S. 324/34 of the ipc. They have also submitted that there is no opinion available on record given by medical expert about the nature of injury. Appellant shot only one arrow without aiming a particular part of the body of the complainant and same has caused injury below right ear 1 cm x 1cm x 15 cm deep. It has also been submitted that appellants were having no previous enmity for forming intention to commit murder of complainant dhulia (PW. l ). The incident occurred all of a sudden when Dhulia and appellants met on the way and complainat instead of giving simple reply to the query put by the appellants behaved arrogantly with them. The learned counsel has also submitted that the appellant No. 1 Bhadriya is in jail since three year three months and 26 days whereas appellants No. 2 and 3 remained in jail in total nine month and 25 days. The learned counsel has also submitted that the appellants comes from tribal community of Jhabua district. They are the first offender and married persons. During the course of pendency of this appeal, daughter of appellant no. 1 Bhadriya has also died, therefore, on all these grounds they prayed for leniency in sentencing the appellants.
( 4 ) ON the other hand the learned counsel for State has submitted that for the purposes of constitution of offence punishable under S. 307 of the IPC the nature of injury is not very material. Even in a case of simple injury accused can be convicted under Section 307 of the IPC if he has caused the injury with intention to commit murder of the injured person.