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

2022 Supreme(Online)(KER) 21285

HIGH COURT OF KERALA
A. BADHARUDEEN, J
SAJU, S/O. MATHEW, – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA, – Respondent
CRL.A/331/2007



Advocates:
ADV SRI.M.RAMESH CHANDER, ADV PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.NIMA JACOB

Intent coupled with an overt act constitutes an attempt to murder under Section 307 IPC, regardless of whether serious injury was inflicted.

Headnote:

Attempt - Criminal Conviction - IPC Section 307 - The court confirmed the conviction for attempt to murder with reference to the prosecution's evidence, supporting legal interpretations of intent and action as outlined in Section 307 IPC.

Fact of the Case:

The accused allegedly stabbed the defacto complainant, causing grievous injury that required kidney removal. The prosecution produced multiple witnesses, while the defense claimed an alibi, which was dismissed based on insufficient evidence.

Finding of the Court:

The court upheld the conviction for attempted murder under Section 307 IPC based on witness testimonies corroborated by medical evidence, rejecting the defense's alibi as unpersuasive.

Issues: Whether the prosecution proved the attempt to murder under Section 307 IPC and if the defense of alibi was credible.

Ratio Decidendi: The essential elements for conviction under Section 307 IPC are the intent to commit murder and the execution of an act towards that intent. The evidence established these elements unequivocally in this case.

Final Decision: The conviction under Section 307 IPC is confirmed; the sentence modified to five years of rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 50,000.

JUDGMENT

The sole accused in S.C.No.353/2004 on the files of the Additional Sessions Court (Adhoc)-II, Thodupuzha has preferred this appeal under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C. assailing conviction and sentence imposed against him in the above case as per judgment dated 22.01.2007. The respondent herein is the State of Kerala.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant, Adv.Ramesh Chander and the learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State.

3. Shown off unnecessary details, the prosecution case is as under:

It is alleged by the prosecution that on 16.12.2002 at about 7.30 p.m., the accused herein, with intention to do away the defacto complainant, stabbed him with a knife, on the left side of his abdomen and thereby caused grievous injury and consequential removal of his kidney. On the above facts, crime No.171/2002 was registered by Kaliyar Police and the matter was investigated. Finally, charge alleging commission of offence under Section 307 of IPC by the accused was laid before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Thodupuzha. The jurisdictional Magistrate committed the case to the court of Sessions, Thodupuzha and in turn, the case was made over to the Additional Sessions Court, Thodupuzha for trial and disposal.

4. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, after hearing the accused and the prosecution, framed charge alleging commission of offence under Section 307 of IPC and proceeded with trial.

5. During trial, PW1 to PW13 were examined and Exts.P1 to P14 and MO1 to MO4 were marked on the side of the prosecution.

6. On close of prosecution evidence, the accused was questioned under Section 313(1)(b) of Cr.P.C and the accused denied the incriminating circumstances found in the evidence against him and he filed a written statement to the effect that the accused was not present at the spot of occurrence at the time of occurrence.

7. Thereafter, DW1 and DW2 examined and Ext.D1 marked on the side of the defence.

8. The learned Sessions Judge appraised the evidence and found that the accused committed offence under Section 307 of IPC and was convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of eight years and to pay fine of Rs.50,000/-. In default of payment of fine, rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year also was imposed with direction to pay the same as compensation to the injured/PW1.

9. The learned counsel for the accused argued that the learned Sessions Judge relied on feeble evidence to convict and sentence the accused in this matter, where the prosecution miserably failed to prove commission of offence under Section 307 of IPC by the accused beyond the reasonable doubt. He had given emphasis to the deposition of PW1, whereby PW1 deposed during cross- examination that he had disclosed the name of the assailant before the doctor with submission that the said portion of evidence is a contradiction, since PW1 not given any such statement before the defence. Apart from that, the learned counsel placed plea of alibi relying on the evidence of DW1 and DW2 and Ext.D1 positing that the accused was not present at the time of occurrence in the place of occurrence.

10. Dispelling this argument, the learned Public Prosecutor vehemently supported the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial court, pointing out the fact that PW1, the injured/defacto complainant and two independent witnesses, viz., PW2 and PW6 supported the occurrence in a convincing manner though PW7, another occurrence witness, did not support the prosecution fully. The learned Public Prosecutor also highlighted medical evidence in this case in support of the conviction and sentence. Accordingly, it is submitted that the conviction and sentence do not require any interference.

11. In this case, the prosecution allegation is that the accused caused stab injury on the left side of the abdomen of PW1 on 16.12.2002 at Vellamohira in Kodikulam – Vellamchira road at 7.30 p.m., by using a knife with intention to do away him. PW1 is th

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