Penal Code, 1860: s.307 r/w s.34 – Grievous injuries on vital parts of the body – Prosecution case was that appellant no.1 stabbed PW-7 with a dagger in her ribs and appellant no.2 stabbed PW-8 with a dagger on right side of his stomach and on left ribs – Trial Court convicted appellants-accused for offence under s.307 r/w s.34 – High Court upheld the order of conviction – On appeal, held: There was no reason to doubt the testimony of the witnesses particularly PW7 and PW8 who were injured eye-witnesses – It was not the case of appellants-accused that the offence occurred out of a sudden quarrel or that the blow was stuck in the heat of the moment – As the deadly weapons were used and injuries were grievous in nature causing injury near chest and stomach which can be said to be vital part of the body, appellants were rightly convicted under s.307 r/w s.34 – Concurrent findings recorded by the courts below holding the appellants guilty do not require any interference in exercise of powers under Art.136 of the Constitution of India. Dismissing the appeal, the Court
HELD: It is not the case of the accused that the offence occurred out of a sudden quarrel. It also does not appear that the blow was stuck in the heat of the moment. On the contrary, considering the depositions of PW7 and PW8, the accused persons pushed and took the husband of PW7 out of the house and thereafter the accused caused the injuries on PW7 and PW8 and stabbed dagger. Thus, deadly weapons were used and the injuries are found to be grievous in nature. As observed by this Court in catena of decisions nobody can enter into the mind of the accused and his intention has to be ascertained from the weapon used, part of the body chosen for assault and the nature of the injury caused. Considering the case on hand on the said principles, when the deadly weapon – dagger has been used, there was a stab injury on the stomach and near the chest which can be said to be on the vital part of the body and the nature of injuries caused, it is rightly held that the appellants have committed the offence under Section 307 IPC. [Para 4][335-F-H; 336-A-B]
State of M.P. v. Mansingh (2003) 10 SCC 414 : [2003]
2 Suppl. SCR 460 – relied on.
Jai Narain Mishra and Ors. v. State of Bihar (1971) 3 SCC 762 – held inapplicable.
Mahesh Balmiki v. State of M.P. (2000) 1 SCC 319 – referred to.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.