The court established that intention and knowledge are critical in determining the applicability of Sections 307 and 326 IPC in cases of grievous hurt and attempted murder.

JUDGMENT & ORDER

S. Datta Purkayastha, J. - This appeal arises out of the judgment dated 28.07.2023 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Dhalai Judicial District, Ambassa in case No.ST (Tpye-1) 19 of 2022 whereby the appellant was convicted under Section 326 of the IPC and under Section 307 of IPC with a direction to suffer sentence of rigorous imprisonment for 5[five] years each and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- under both the counts and in default to pay the fine, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a further period of 6 months.

2. On 06.04.2022, one Tharmoni Tripura lodged a written Ejahar to Dhumacherra Police Station alleging, inter alia, that on that day, at about 11.30 am the appellant who is the husband of his daughter, Ringkhalaiti Tripura, came to informant's house and gave Dao blows on Ringkhalaiti Tripura with an intention to kill her. She was taken to Dhumacherra hospital where she was receiving treatment. The police authority registered the case as Dhumacherra P.S Case No.03 of 2022 under Sections 324/307 of the IPC and proceeded with the investigation which finally culminated into filing of a chargesheet by the Investigating Officer (I.O), Sub-Inspector of Police, Sri Debananda Tripura [PW-10] under Sections 326/307 of the IPC against the appellant.

3. The charges under Sections 307 & 326 IPC were accordingly framed by the Sessions Judge, Dhalai Judicial District, Ambassa, to which the appellant claimed his innocence and to establish the charges, the prosecution thereafter examined total 10 [ten] witnesses and finally, learned Sessions Judge found the appellant guilty under both the Sections as indicated above.

4. Mr. S. Das, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, argued that no weapon of offence was seized by the I.O and that there were major discorroborations amongst the testimonies of vital witnesses to the case. According to Mr. Das, learned counsel, it was doubtful that the uncle of the victim i.e. P.W.5 had any scope to witness the occurrence and PW-6, the sister of the victim, was also practically a hearsay witness. Learned counsel also argued that according to PW-3 & PW-4, i.e. grandmother and elder sister of the victim had claimed to have remained there at the scene of crime but the victim nowhere stated that the said witnesses were present at the time of alleged occurrence. According to him, what sort of weapon exactly used for the alleged commission of crime was not proved by the prosecution and also there was no basis for the opinion by the doctor that a sharp cutting weapon was used to cause the injuries to the victim. Mr. Das, learned counsel further strengthened his submission, pointing out that the cause of occurrence was due to matrimonial dispute between the husband and wife but no FIR/complaint regarding any sort of such matrimonial discord between them was proved. None from the locality also came forward to depose against the appellant though according to the prosecution witnesses, the locals immediately arrived there after the occurrence and shifted the victim to the hospital. Other two points, learned counsel argued, were that no knowledge or intention of committing murder by the appellant was proved by the prosecution to attract Section 307 of the IPC but the trial court omitted to take notice of the same and even the appellant was deprived of the benefit of Probation of Offenders Act, 1958.

5. Mr. Das, learned counsel finally relied on a decision rendered in Santosh Das vs. State of Tripura, (2014) 2 GLR 667 where Division Bench of this Court has observed that to attract Section 307 IPC, the act must be done with such intention and knowledge or done under such circumstances that if death be caused by that act, the offence of murder would emerge. In that case, out of 4[four] injuries-one was grievous in nature caused on the left forearm of the victim. Finally, the Court in that case set aside the conviction under Section 307 of the IPC and convicted him under Section 325 IPC. Mr. Das, lea