IMPORTANT POINT
The court clarified that a conviction for attempted murder requires clear evidence of intent, which was lacking, thus warranting a lesser charge.

JUDGMENT :

The present appeal is filed against the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 31-7-1999 passed by the learned First Additional Session Judge, District Shajapur (M.P.) in ST No. 37/1999, whereby, the appellant has been convicted under section 307 and 450 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as ‘IPC’) and sentenced to undergo 07 years and 05 years R.I. with fine of Rs. 25000/- and Rs. 2000/- with default stipulation.

2. As per the prosecution case, in the night of 24-11-1998, the complainant namely Ramesh came to his house at about 3 AM after irrigating the agriculture field. He was sleeping in the veranda after closing the door. At about 4:00 AM, one Peru Singh entered into the house and assaulted him on his chin and neck by means of sword with intention to kill him. After the assault, blood was oozing out and on his screaming, his mother son and other witnesses came on the spot. They have taken the injured to the hospital and lodged the complaint. Therefore, the police recorded the statements of the witnesses and registered the FIR under sections 450 and 307 of Indian Penal Code. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed and the case was committed to the Session Judge. Thereafter, the learned trial Court has framed charges against the appellant under section 307 and 450 of Indian Penal Code.

3. In support of the case, the prosecution has examined as many as 07 witnesses namely Ramesh (PW-1), Shailendra Singh (PW-2), Dr. A. R. Hardiya (PW-3), Arjun Singh (PW-4), Gopal Singh (PW-5), Hanumant Singh Panwar (PW-6), Dr. Virendra Kumar Rathore (PW-7). No witness has been adduced by the appellant in his defence.

4. The learned trial Court on appreciation of the evidence and arguments adduced by the parties, finally concluded the case and convicted the appellant for the commission of the offence punishable under section 307 and 450 of Indian Penal Code, vide the impugned judgment.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant, being crestfallen by the aforesaid finding of the trial Court, submitted that the learned trial Court has committed grave error of law and facts in the convicting and sentencing the appellant without considering the evidence available on record. It is further submitted that there are material contradictions and omissions in the statements of the witnesses. Counsel for the appellant submits that after the incident, the complainant himself has lodged the FIR which means he was not in a serious condition and if that be so, the complainant/injured has to reach hospital first, but the learned trial Court has committed error in not considering this factum and wrongly convicted under section 307 of Indian Penal Code. In the medical report, he has received the injury on his jaw only. There is no eye-witness in the present case.

6. Further, learned counsel for the appellant submits that since there is a single blow in the matter, hence, the offence under section 307 of Indian Penal Code cannot be made out against the appellant and if the case of the prosecution is taken as it is, the case of the prosecution would not travel more than the offences under section 325 or 326 of Indian Penal Code. The appellant has already suffered approximately 20 months of his incarceration out of the seven years.

7. Alternatively, counsel for the appellant has further argued on the point of sentence also and prays that since the appellant has already undergone almost approximately 20 months in jail incarceration, his jail sentence be reduced to the period already undergone. It is also submitted that the appellant has already deposited the fine amount so awarded by the learned trial Court. It is further submitted that the appellant deserves some leniency as the appellant already suffered the ordeal of the trial since 1998 i.e. for a period of 26 years. It is further submitted that this appeal be partly allowed and the sentence awarded to the appellant be reduced to the period already undergone.

8. Learned cou