The requirement of intention is crucial in establishing liability under Section 307 IPC, distinguishing it from lesser charges.

ORDER

This Criminal Revision has been preferred as against the judgment dated 19.04.2022, passed by the learned II Additional District & Sessions Judge, Ranipet, Vellore, in C.A.No.16 of 2021, thereby confirming the order dated 15.02.2021, passed by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Ranipet in S.C.No.171 of 2017, thereby convicting the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 307 of IPC.

2. The case of the prosecution was that when P.W.1 was deputed by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Ranipet, to inspect the vehicles on 19.11.2014 at about 4.30 hours at Vellore to Chennai National Highways on the eastern side of Walaja Tollgate, along with police party, the petitioner came there in his motor cycle. On suspicion, the petitioner was asked to stop the vehicle and to produce the documents. Immediately, the petitioner had taken a knife from his shoes and scolded them with filthy language and also threatened them with dire consequences, by showing the knife. Further, the petitioner also assaulted P.W.1 on his shoulder and therefore P.W.1 sustained injury. Thereafter, the petitioner flew away from the scene of occurrence by taking the police four wheeler “Tata Sumo”. On the complaint, the respondent registered the FIR in Crime No.602 of 2014 for the offences punishable under Sections

294(b), 332, 307, 506(2), 392 r/w 397 of IPC. After completion of investigation, the respondent filed final report and same was taken cognizance by the Trial Court in S.C.No.171 of 2017.

3. In order to bring the charges to home, the prosecution had examined P.W.1 to P.W.16 and marked documents in Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.15. The prosecution also produced the material objects in M.O.1 to M.O.3. On the side of the petitioner, no one was examined and no document was marked. On perusal of the oral and documentary evidences, the Trial Court found the petitioner guilty for the offence punishable under Section 307 of IPC and sentenced him to undergo seven years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default, to undergo six months rigorous imprisonment. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred an appeal and the same was also dismissed by the appellate Court by confirming the order passed by the Trial Court. Hence, the petitioner filed the present revision.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the victim was examined as P.W.1. The Trial Court acquitted the petitioner for the charges under Sections 294(b), 332, 506(2), 392 r/w. 397 of IPC. Even according to the case of the prosecution, when the petitioner came by his motor cycle, he was intercepted by the P.W.1 and was asked for the document. Immediately, the petitioner had taken a knife from his shoes and assaulted him. Thereafter, he flew away from the scene of occurrence. Therefore, he had absolutely no intention to do away with the life of P.W.1. Hence, the offence punishable under Section 307 of IPC, cannot be attracted as against the petitioner. Though the alleged occurrence happened near toll gate, no independent witness was examined by the prosecution. Further the recovery was also not proved by the prosecution. In fact, the motor cycle which was allegedly driven by the petitioner was neither recovered from the petitioner and nor produced before the Court. Therefore, the prosecution failed to prove the charge for the offence punishable under Section 307 of IPC.

5. Per contra, the learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side)

appearing for the respondent police submitted that when P.W.1 and other team members were in duty, they stopped the petitioner's vehicle since he was riding the vehicle in a drunken state. Immediately, the petitioner had taken a knife from his shoes and attacked P.W.1 in order to do away with the life of P.W