SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(Chh) 8616

IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Ramesh Sinha, CJ, Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J
Mahesh Ram – Appellant
Versus
State Of Chhattisgarh – Respondent
CRA No. 148 of 2024



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners:Reena Singh, Advocate
For the Respondents:Saumya Rai, Dy. Govt. Advocate

The offense of attempt to murder is established when an act is committed with the specific intention or knowledge required for murder, regardless of whether death ultimately ensues, provided the prosecution proves the guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - S. 302 and 307 - Murder and Attempt to Murder - Prosecution proved guilt beyond reasonable doubt through eyewitness testimony and supporting medical and forensic evidence - Plea of sudden provocation rejected - Conviction and sentence upheld.

(B) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - S. 374(2) - Appeal against conviction - Scope of trial court's appreciation of evidence - Trial court's findings not perverse or contrary to record; findings of fact affirmed.

Facts of the case:
The appellant was convicted for the murder of the deceased and for attempting to murder the complainant, who had intervened in a domestic dispute between the appellant and his wife. The appellant attacked both victims with an axe, resulting in the death of the deceased.

Findings of Court:
The oral evidence of eyewitnesses, corroborated by medical reports and the recovery of the weapon, conclusively established the appellant's intent and act. The court found no merit in the contention that the offense amounted only to culpable homicide.

Issues: Whether the trial court was justified in convicting the appellant under S. 302 and 307 IPC and whether the injuries inflicted constituted murder and attempt to murder.

Ratio Decidendi: An act committed with the knowledge or intention required for murder constitutes attempt to murder if death does not result, and since the prosecution successfully proved these elements, the conviction is sound.

Result: Appeals dismissed.

Table of Content
1. procedural status of the appeal and sentencing overview. (Para 1 , 2)
2. summary of prosecution evidence, fir details, and investigation procedures. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8)
3. appellant counsel arguments regarding sudden provocation vs. intent. (Para 9 , 10)
4. respondent state's arguments regarding the evidence of intentional assault. (Para 11)
5. court's re-evaluation of eyewitness testimony and medical records. (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38)
6. final ratio regarding proof beyond reasonable doubt and rejection of appeal. (Para 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43)

Judgment on Board

Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice

1. Today, though the matter is listed for hearing on I.A.No.01/2024, which is an application for suspension of sentence and grant of bail to the appellant, however, considering the fact that the appellant is in jail since 23.08.2021 and with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the appeal is heard finally. Accordingly, I.A. No. 01/2024 stands disposed of.

2. This criminal appeal preferred under Section 374(2) of the Cr.P.C. is directed against the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 21.11.2023 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Jashpur, District – Jashpur (C.G.) in Sessions Trial No. 97/2021, by which the appellant has been convicted and sentenced with a direction to run all the sentences concurrently in the following manner :

CONVICTION SENTENCE
U/s 302 of IPC R.I. for life and fine of Rs. 100/-, in default of payment of fine, additional R.I. for 2 months.
U/s 307 of IPC R.I. for 10 years and fine of Rs. 100/-, in default of payment of fine, additional R.I. for 2 months.

3. The prosecution case, in brief, is that the complainant, Devraj Ram, lodged a report at Jashpur Police Station stating that he resides in Luikona village and works as a farmer. On 23.08.2021, he was at home with his family at night when Manjari Bai, the wife of a neighbor, accused Mahesh Ram, approached Shri Ram's house calling for help. The accused, Mahesh Ram, followed her and began assaulting his wife. Shri Ram, attempting to stop the fight, said, "Don't fight here." In response, accused Mahesh Ram struck Shri Ram on the head with an axe. Seeing this, the complainant's wife, Kumail Bai, tried to intervene, and Mahesh Ram struck her on the head and back three or four times with the axe, causing serious injuries. Complainant’s son, Shriram, fell to the ground with a serious head injury, and his wife also fell, bleeding from her head. Mahesh Ram then attempted to strike the complainant as well, but he fled in fear. Later, with the help of neighbors, he called an ambulance (108) and took his wife Kumail Bai and son Shriram to District Hospital, Jashpur, for treatment. Upon examination, the doctor declared Shriram dead and admitted Kumail Bai for treatment. Thus, Mahesh Ram fatally attacked Shriram, causing serious head injuries that resulted in his death.

4. After Devraj lodged the report at Jashpur Police Station, an inquest was conducted under Section 174 CrPC, and the cause of death was investigated. Subsequently, after registering the First Information Report (Ex.P-1), Crime No. 191/2021 was taken up for investigation under Sections 302 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The spot map of the incident was prepared (Ex.P-3), and the Patwari prepared the site map (Ex.P-5) along with the Panchnama (Ex.P-6). The inspector inspected the body after summoning the panchas and prepared the inquest (Ex.P-8). An application was submitted to the constable for examination of the deceased's body. According to the Medical Officer, Dr. Gayatri Ohdar, the post-mortem examination of the deceased Shriram, conducted on 23.08.2021, revealed that the cause of death was cardiorespiratory arrest due to hypodynamic shock. The deceased’s death occurred within 20 to 22 hours of the autopsy. The nature of dea

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top