Penal Code, 1860 – ss.307 & 324 – Complainant case was that he and his brothers were attacked by accused/respondent No.1, accused/respondent no.2 and an unidentified person – Complainant alleged that accused/respondent No.1 stabbed him several times with a knife – Trial court convicted the accused/respondent no.1 u/s.307 IPC and accused/respondent No.2 was convicted u/s. 307 r/w. 34 IPC – High Court converted the conviction of the accused/respondent no.1 from s.307 IPC to s.324 IPC and accused/respondent No.2 was acquitted – On appeal, held: In instant case, a perusal of facts and the record clearly indicate that the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that accused/respondent No.1 had inflicted four injuries on the complainant by using a knife – The multiple blows inflicted would prove the intention of causing bodily injury likely to cause death of the victim – Stabbing a person with a knife, near his vital organs would in most circumstances lead to the death of the victim, thereby falling squarely within the meaning of s.307 IPC – The findings of the High Court that injuries inflicted were on ‘unimportant parts’ of the complainant’s body was erroneous – Thus, judgment of the High Court qua accused/respondent No.1 set aside – Insofar, accused/respondent No.2 is concerned, the High Court was right that there was lack of consistency in the deposition of the prosecution witnesses with respect to the role of the accused/respondent No.2 – Thus, Judgment of High Court qua respondent No.2 confirmed.
Disposing of the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. In the present case, a perusal of the facts and the record clearly indicate that the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that Accused /Respondent No. 1 had inflicted four injuries, on the Complainant by using a knife. The oral testimonies of P.W. 4 and P.W. 5 – the brothers of the Complainant who were eye witnesses, stood corroborated by the medical evidence. [Para 5.1] [572-B-C]
2. The act of stabbing a person with a sharp knife, which is a dangerous weapon, near his vital organs, would ordinarily lead to the death of the victim. The weapon of offence was a 4-inch long knife which is a dangerous weapon. The Accused /Respondent No. 1 had assaulted the Complainant with the said knife, and inflicted multiple injuries on his chest, scapula, back, and buttocks. The multiple blows inflicted by the Accused /Respondent No. 1 would prove the intention of causing bodily injury likely to cause the death of the victim. Stabbing a person with a knife, near his vital organs would in most circumstances lead to the death of the victim, thereby falling squarely within the meaning of Section 307. Section 307 uses the term “hurt” which has been explained in Section 319, I.P.C.; and not “grievous hurt” within the meaning of Section 320 I.P.C. If a person causes hurt with the intention or knowledge that he may cause death, it would attract Section 307. [Para 5.6] [573-C-F]
3. If the assailant acts with the intention or knowledge that such action might cause death, and hurt is caused, then the provisions of Section 307 I.P.C. would be applicable. There is no requirement for the injury to be on a “vital part” of the body, merely causing ‘hurt’ is sufficient to attract S. 307 I.P.C. [Para 5.6] [574-C-D]
4. In the Impugned Judgment, the High Court incorrectly held that the Prosecution has been unable to prove that the Accused /Respondent No. 1 had the intention to commit murder of the Complainant. The motive of assault by the Accused/Respondent No. 1 on the Complainant-P.W. 2 was clearly established by the Prosecution, since there was an existing dispute which was the subject matter of a court case. It is evident from the evidence adduced before the Court, and the circumstances surrounding the case, that the prosecution has been able to prove the case against Accused /Respondent No. 1 beyond reasonable doubt. The prosecution has successfully proved that the Accused /Respondent No. 1 had attempted to murder the Complainant and the requirements of Section 307 are made out from the ocular evidence which are corroborated by the medical evidence. [Paras 5.8 and 5.9] [575-D-G]
5. In so far as the case against Accused /Respondent No. 2 is concerned; the prosecution has not been able to prove beyond reasonable doubt the charge under Section 307 r. w. Section 34 I.P.C. The High Court has rightly held that there is lack of consistency in the deposition of the Prosecution witnesses with respect to the role of the Accused /Respondent No. 2. [Para 7] [576-C}
R. Prakash v. State of Karnataka (2004) 9 SCC 27: [2004] 2 SCR 281; Jage Ram v. State of Haryana (2015) 11 SCC 366 : [2015] 11 SCR 1004; State of M.P. v. Kanha @ Omprakash 2019 (2) SCALE 454 – relied on.
State of Madhya Pradesh v. Mohan & Ors, (2013) 14 SCC 116 : [2013] 7 SCR 802 – 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.