Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT INDORE
Prem Narayan Singh, J.
Shankarlal And Others – Appellants
Versus
The State Of Madhya Pradesh – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 8027 of 2019
Decided On : 19-05-2025
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. overview of trial court conviction and prosecution facts. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 2. arguments contesting 307 ipc application and seeking sentence reduction. (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9) |
| 3. evaluation of evidence credibility and witness testimony admissibility. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17) |
| 4. criteria for distinguishing section 307 and 325 ipc based on intent. (Para 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27) |
| 5. final sentence modification and order regarding compensation. (Para 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34) |
JUDGMENT :
PREM NARAYAN SINGH, J.
Heard.
Appellants have preferred this criminal appeal under Section 374 of Cr.P.C., being aggrieved by the judgement dated 09.09.2019, passed by the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Dr. Ambedkar Nagar, District Indore (M.P.) in S. T. No.301314/2012, whereby the appellants have been convicted for the offences punishable as under :-
2. Prosecution case in nutshell is that on 26.08.2012, at about 3.00 PM, appellants have entered into the house of the complainant/injured Mukesh, abused him in filthy language thereafter, assaulted him by means of sword, as a result of which, he sustained injuries on the right side of frontal parietal bone, vertex, occipital region and right eyebrow. In this case, Dehati Nalsi (Ex.P/4) was recorded by the A.S.I. at Police Station Mhow, District Indore and on the basis of said Dehati Nalsi, FIR bearing Crime No.541/2012 (Ex.P/8) was lodged on 26.08.2012 for the offences u/S 294, 452, 307 and 506/34 of IPC against the appellants.
3. The police party, after following due procedure, arrested the accused persons and registered the case against them. During investigation, medical examination was conducted, spot map was prepared and seized articles were sent to the Forensic Laboratory and thereafter, recorded the statement of the witnesses. Charge-sheet was filed against the appellants before the JMFC, Mhow, District Indore (M.P.) for the offence u/S 294, 452, 307 and 506/34 of IPC alongwith 25(1-B)(b) of Arms Act, who in turn, committed the matter to the Court of Sessions. Thereafter, learned Trial Court framed charges u/S 294, 452, 307/34 and 506-II of IPC alongwith 25(1-B)(b) of Arms Act against the appellants. In turn, appellants abjured their guilt and took a plea that they had been falsely implicated in the present crime and pleaded for trial.
4. In support of the case, the prosecution has examined as many as 17 witnesses namely, Dr. Ved Kumari Verma (PW-1), Mukesh PW-2), Prashant (PW-3), Sumit (PW-4), Kiran (PW-5), Ranjeet (PW-6), Venkatrao (PW-7), Suraj (PW-8), Vinay Swami (PW-9), Sachin Verma (PW-10), Nagendra Singh (PW- 11), Rajesh Verma, (PW-12), Chain Singh (PW-13), B.K. Chouhan (PW-14), Aashish Sharma (PW-15), Banti (PW-16) and Manoj (PW-17) and also got exhibited 29 documents. The appellants got exhibited 03 documents Ex.D/1 to D/3 in their defence.
5. Learned Trial Court, on appreciation of the evidence and arguments adduced by the parties, pronounced the impugned judgement on 09.09.2019, finally concluded the case and convicted the appellants for commission of the said offence under the provisions of Section 307/34 and 452 of IPC.
6. Learned counsel for the appellants, being crestfallen by the aforesaid findings of the Trial Court, submitted that the judgement and order of the Trial Court is contrary to law and facts available on record. The incident occurred on the spur of moment and there was no intention/motive to cause injury/death to the complainant and also there was no previous enmity. Learned Trial Court committed error in not considering the material contradictions and omissions appeared in the statement of prosecution witnesses. Apart that, learned counsel for the appellants has further submitted that the Trial Court has not considered the statement of witnesses in its right perspective and wrongly discarded the same, which is clear violation of principle of natural justice. Learned counsel for the appellants has vehement
The court clarified that a conviction for attempted murder requires clear evidence of intent, which was lacking, thus warranting a lesser charge.
To establish an offense under Section 307 IPC, proof of intent to kill is required; a single injury does not suffice to conclude such intent, allowing for conviction under Section 326 IPC instead.
The court clarified that for a conviction under section 307 IPC, there must be clear evidence of intent to kill, which was not established in this case.
The court determined that the conviction under Section 307 was unwarranted, affirming instead a conviction under Section 325 for voluntarily causing grievous hurt.
A conviction for attempt to murder requires independent proof of murderous mens rea, which cannot be presumed solely from the severity of injuries. When an assault is spontaneous and lacks evidence o....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the court has the authority to analyze the evidence and modify the conviction and sentence based on the facts and circumstances of the case.
Proof of grievous or life-threatening hurt is not essential for the offence punishable u/s 307 of the IPC. The intention of the accused can be ascertained from the actual injury and surrounding circu....
The court clarified that for a conviction under Section 307 IPC, the prosecution must prove the accused's intention to kill, which was not established in this case.
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
