Back
Do Not Negate Under : AP High Court
In a significant ruling affirming the scope of attempted murder, the has held that the nature of injuries — whether — does not by itself determine the applicability of . Justice Subhendu Samanta upheld the conviction of a man who inflicted eleven knife blows on the victim’s neck, rejecting the defence’s argument that the ‘simple’ nature of the wounds negated the charge.
The Attack and the Grudge
The case dates back to , when the accused, Setty Bhaskara Rao, attacked the victim (PW-2) with a knife, pushing him and repeatedly stabbing him on the neck. The victim’s cries drew villagers to the spot, forcing the accused to flee. The prosecution established that the accused harboured a grudge because of an earlier criminal case in which he had been convicted and fined.
The trial court convicted the accused under and sentenced him to five years’ rigorous imprisonment with a fine of ₹1,000. On appeal, the additional district judge confirmed the conviction but reduced the imprisonment to three years. The accused then approached the High Court in .
Defence Arguments: A Bid to Downscale the Charge
Counsel for the petitioner argued that the injuries sustained were simple in nature and that the assault arose from . The medical evidence, they contended, did not support an . They also pointed out that independent witnesses had turned hostile and that the recovery of the knife was doubtful. Their principal submission was that the offence could, at best, be converted to one under ().
Prosecution’s Stand: Intention Clear from the Manner of Attack
The state countered that the testimony of the victim’s relatives could not be discarded merely on the ground of relationship, especially when their evidence was reliable. It argued that the accused, without provocation, targeted the neck — a vital part — and delivered eleven blows. This, according to the prosecution, unequivocally demonstrated the intention to cause death.
Court’s Analysis: Intention, Not Injury, Is Key
Justice Samanta examined the of , which require proof that the accused had the intention or knowledge that his act was likely to cause death. The court distinguished the case from , where the had found no because the accused used the blunt side of a weapon. Here, the facts were starkly different.
“The fact suggests that the petitioner attacked P.W.2 with knife and inflicted eleven blows on his neck, which is undoubtedly a vital part of the human body. Causing one or two blows at the neck of a person itself is sufficient to cause death of that person,” the court observed.
On the contention of , the court noted the absence of any sudden dispute; instead, there was a pre-existing grudge due to the earlier case. The defence offered no explanation for why eleven blows were inflicted on the neck if the attack was merely a reaction to provocation.
Medical Evidence Not Decisive
The court categorically rejected the argument that automatically negate an charge. “Even if the injuries are opined to be simple in nature, that by itself does not render the medical evidence inconsistent with the prosecution case or negate the offence under ,” the judgment reads.
The court also upheld the trial court’s reliance on the admissible portion of the evidence regarding recovery of the knife, despite the mediators turning hostile.
Decision: Revision Dismissed, Sentence Sustained
Finding no ground to interfere with the of the courts below, Justice Samanta dismissed the . The order suspending the sentence during the pendency of the revision was vacated. The accused was directed to appear before the trial court or jail authorities within six weeks to serve the remaining portion of the sentence, failing which a would be issued.
The ruling reinforces the principle that under , the focus must be on the intent and manner of the assault rather than solely on the outcome of the injuries. It serves as a reminder that even when a victim survives with simple wounds, a determined attack on a vital part of the body can still amount to attempted murder.
