IMPORTANT POINT
For offence u/s 307 IPC Court has to see whether the act, irrespective of its result, was done with intention or knowledge and under circumstances mentioned in section.

Headnote:(i) Indian Penal Code, 1860-Section 307-To justify conviction, it would not be essential that bodily injury capable of causing death must have been inflicted-Court has to see whether the act, irrespective of its results, was done with intention or knowledge and under circumstances mentioned in Section.
       Held : To justify a conviction under this Section, it is not essential that bodily injury capable of causing death should have been inflicted. Although the nature of injury actually caused may often give considerable assistance in coming to a finding as to the intention of the accused, such intention may also be deduced from other circumstances, and may even, in some cases, be ascertained without any reference at all to actual wounds. The Section makes a distinction between an act of the accused and its result, if any. Such an act may not be attended by any result so far as the person assaulted is concerned, but still there may be cases in which the culprit would be liable under this Section. It is not necessary that the injury actually caused to the victim of the assault should be sufficient under ordinary circumstances to cause the death of the person assaulted. What the Court has to see is whether the act, irrespective of its result, was done with the intention or knowledge and under circumstances mentioned in the Section. An attempt in order to be criminal need not be the penultimate act. It is sufficient in law, if there is present an intent coupled with some overt act in execution thereof. It is sufficient to justify a conviction under Section 307 if there is present an intent coupled with some overt act in execution thereof. It is not essential that bodily injury capable of causing death should have been inflicted. The Section makes a distinction between the act of the accused and its result, if any. The Court has to see whether the act, irrespective of its result, was done with the intention or knowledge and under circumstances mentioned in the Section. Therefore, it is not correct to acquit an accused of the charge under Section 307 IPC merely because the injuries inflicted on the victim were in the nature of a simple hurt. (Paras 9 and 10)
       (ii) Indian Penal Code, 1860-Section 307-Accused-appellant, a constable in police, fired a gun from a very close range aiming at victim lying on a cot, his colleague, but shot did not hit victim-Bullet broke into pieces and splinters entered into victim s leg-Conviction u/s 307 IPC called for no interference-Sentence-High Court imposing sentence of 10 years imprisonment rightly recorded that a guardian of law took law into his hands-However taking into account the peculiar circumstances of the case, sentence of 5 years imprisonment found just to have necessary chastening and deterrent effect. (Paras 14 and 15)

JUDGMENT

Arijit Pasayat, J.-When member of a disciplined force like police force is accused of having shot his colleague with a gun, it naturally raises eyebrows and the case at hand is one such case. The victim Vilas (PW-2) was a relative of the accused.

2. According to the prosecution, over a petty family matter, accused took exception and on 18.7.1983 fired a gun from a very close range aiming at the victim lying on a cot. Luckily, the shot did not hit the victim, it hit springs of the cot, the bullet broke into pieces and the splinters entered into his leg. Information was lodged with the police, investigation was undertaken and charge sheet was filed for alleged commission of offence punishable under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short the IPC ) and Section 27 of the Arms Act, 1959 (for short the Arms Act ).

3. The Trial Court placing reliance on the evidence of the witnesses including victim found the accused guilty of the offence punishable under Section 324 IPC and sentenced him to undergo RI for one year. Similar sentence was imposed for the offence under the Arms Act. It was held that the factual background did not warrant conviction under Section 307 IPC. The State of Maharashtra filed an appeal questioning acquittal of charge under Section 307 IPC, while the accused questioned the conviction. Both the appeals were heard together by the Division Bench which by the impugned judgment held that case under Section 307 was clearly made out, and the Trial Court was not justified in holding that the accused was guilty of offence punishable under Section 324 IPC. Taking into account the fact that the accused was supposed to be a guardian of law on the date of the occurrence and at a public place i.e. the guard room in the District Head Police headquarters, he took law in his hands, custodial sentence of 10 years RI was imposed. The sentence under the Arms Act was maintained. The appeal filed by the accused was dismissed.

4. In support of the appeal, learned counsel for the accused appellant submitted that both the trial Court and the High Court have fallen into grave error by holding that the prosecution evidence established commission of an offence and consequently holding accused appellant guilty. Material evidence which would have shown that the appellant could not have committed the crime was suppressed. It was further submitted that even if the prosecution version is accepted in toto, offence under Section 307 IPC is not made out, as was rightly held by the Trial Court. Strong Reliance was placed on few decisions of this Court. Ram Prasad and Anr. v. State of Uttar Pradesh (1982(2) SCC 149) and Kundan Singh v. State of Punjab (1982(3) SCC 213). In any event, sentence imposed is harsh.

5. Learned counsel for the respondent-State supported the judgment of the High Court stating that well reasoned judgment of the High Court needs no interference.

6. Before dealing with the rival stands, it would be necessary to take note of the few factual aspects highlighted.

7. On 2.7.1983, victim Vilas s brother Bhagwan was married. In the said marriage, family members of the accused were not invited. It appears that they took exception to this. It is said that about 2-1/2 months prior to the incident, father of the accused had given a feast in the name of a deity, wherein despite being invited Vilas s family members did not join. This appears to have further soured the relationship. On 16.7.1983, when Vilas and his relative Shankar Kikade (PW-9) were returning from roll call to their rooms, the accused came from behind on a cycle and sought an explanation from Vilas for not calling him to his brother s marriage and for not attending the feast which, he (accused) had given in honour of the deity. He threatened to kill Vilas in two days. Thereafter, he went away on a bicycle.

8. The evidence is that Vilas (PW-2) was residing in room No. 19 with his family members in Sangli Police Headquarters. In the same premises, the accus

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2004 Supreme(SC) 278

IMPORTANT POINTFor offence u/s 307 IPC Court has to see whether the act, irrespective of its result, was done with intention or knowledge and under circumstances mentioned in section.

Cases Referred (4)

IMPORTANT POINT
For offence u/s 307 IPC Court has to see whether the act, irrespective of its result, was done with intention or knowledge and under circumstances mentioned in section.