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)(HP) 2894

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Sushil Kukreja, Virender Singh, JJ
State of Himachal Pradesh – Appellant
Versus
Roshan Lal – Respondent
Cr. Appeal No. 217 of 2010



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Manoj Chauhan
For the Respondents: Suneet Goel, Vishwas Kaushal, N.S. Chandel, Shwetima Dogra

An offence under Section 307 IPC requires the prosecution to prove that the accused acted with the specific intention or knowledge that their act was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death; absent this mens rea, the charge of attempt to murder cannot be sustained.

Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 307, 435, 325, 147 and 323 - Appeal against acquittal for offence under Section 307 IPC - Prosecution failed to establish intention or knowledge to cause death - Medical evidence confirmed injuries were not dangerous to life - Trial Court correctly acquitted accused for the offence of attempt to murder - Appellate Court will not interfere with a well-reasoned trial court judgment unless perverse - Held, judgment upheld.

Facts of the case:
Complainant alleged that on 23.05.1998, a group of accused assaulted him, his family, and his brother, resulting in minor and grievous injuries, and attempted to burn the brother in a fire heap. The trial court convicted the accused under Sections 435, 325, 147, and 323 IPC but acquitted them under Section 307 IPC. The State appealed against the acquittal under Section 307 IPC.

Findings of Court:
The medical opinion stated that the injuries were not dangerous to life. The court observed that the incident arose from a spontaneous altercation and lacked the requisite mens rea or premeditation for an attempt to murder under Section 307 IPC.

Issues: Whether the trial court erred in acquitting the accused for the offence of attempt to murder under Section 307 IPC.

Ratio Decidendi: An offence under Section 307 IPC requires the presence of specific intention or knowledge that the act is so imminently dangerous that it would, in all probability, cause death. Mere occurrence of injuries, even if grievous, is insufficient to attract Section 307 IPC if the evidence fails to demonstrate the requisite murderous intent.

Result: Appeal dismissed.

Sushil Kukreja, Judge.

The instant appeal has been preferred by the appellant/State under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 05.10.2009, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge Ghumarwin, District Bilaspur, H.P., in Sessions Trial No. 10/7 of 2004/02, whereby the respondents/accused (hereinafter referred to as the “accused”) were convicted under Sections 435, 325, 147 & 323 of the Indian Penal Code (for short “IPC”).

The facts giving rise to the present appeal, as per the prosecution story are that on 23.05.1998, Ranvir Singh was doing construction work in his cowshed, where he had engaged Mast Ram as mason and Joginder Singh as labourer. Around 4:30 P.M., accused Parveen and his younger brother Rajinder Kumar came in the courtyard of Ranvir Singh and inquired about the construction work being carried out by him. Both the accused threatened Ranvir Singh with dire consequences and accused Rajinder Kumar was having knife with him. Ranvir Singh apprehending danger, went inside the house and telephonically informed the police about the incident. In the meantime, both the accused forcibly took Joginder Singh, labourer in their scooter to their house. After some time, father of the aforesaid accused persons, Jagdish Kumar came in a Maruti Van from Ghumarwin side and within 5-7 minutes of reaching the house, the said Van again came back and on its way, it was stopped by the complainant and his wife Manjuwala. In the said Van, accused Jagdish Kumar, Parveen Kumar, Rajinder Kumar and one unknown person were sitting alongwith Joginder Singh. Suddenly, the persons sitting in the vehicle started beating the complainant and his wife. While the persons sitting in the vehicle were beating the complainant and his wife, other co-accused Rattani Devi, Sanju and his younger brother, who were nearby some Khokha, also came there to attack the complainant. Accused Kuldeep Singh, Roshan Lal, Surinder Singh, Anil Kumar and Lohka Ram were carrying dandas while the other persons were having stones/bricks in their hands. When complainant saw himself surrounded, he went inside his house due to fear and saw 2-3 heaps of firewood being set on fire by the accused. In the meantime, Surinder brother of the complainant, who was telephonically informed by the complainant’s wife about the incident, came to the spot. The moment he reached the courtyard of the complainant’s house, accused Kuldeep Singh, Anil Kumar and Lohka Ram proclaimed to kill him. Upon which, Rakesh Kumar and Kuldeep Singh caught hold of him and the other persons starting beating him, as a result of which, Surinder fell down unconscious and he was thrown into the fire by the accused persons. When the complainant saw that his brother was virtually killed by the accused, he came outside crying for help, where he was chased by accused Kuldeep Singh, Lohka Ram and Roshan Lal, but fortunately on the main road, he found a red light vehicle, which took him to the Police Station, Ghumarwin. Surinder was somehow dragged from the fire place by Manjuwala and her daughter, but accused also gave beatings to them. When the complainant returned back, Surinder was unconscious at the spot and blood was oozing from his mouth, ear and nose, as such, he was taken to hospital. The telephonic information allegedly given by the complainant to the police before the incident was reduced into writing in Roznamcha, upon which, the police party went to the spot. The police visited Civil Hospital, Ghumarwin and found Surinder unable to give statement, as such, statement of Ranvir Singh was recorded under Section 154 Cr. P.C. The medical examination reports of complainant, his daughters Nisha and Neha and his wife were obtained, wherein they found to have sustained simple injuries. The brother of the complainant Surinder was referred to PGI Chandigarh, where he remained admitted w.e.f. 24.05.1998 to 26.05.1998 and it was opined that he suffer

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