Penal Code, 1860 – ss.307 and 324 – Conversion of conviction u/s.307 to s.324 – When perverse – As per prosecution, altercation took place between two parties – Respondent with intention to kill one ‘DS’, shot him with a fire-arm and caused bleeding injuries on his right thigh – Respondent convicted u/s.307, IPC – High Court converted the conviction of the respondent from that u/s.307 to s.324, IPC – Propriety of – Held: Evidence establishes that the injuries were caused by a fire-arm – Multiplicity of wounds indicate that the respondent fired at the injured more than once, the fact that hurt has been caused by the respondent is sufficiently proven – Proof of grievous or life-threatening hurt is not a sine qua non for the offence u/s. 307, IPC – Lack of forensic evidence to prove grievous or life-threatening injury cannot be a basis to hold that s.307, IPC is inapplicable – In the present case, the nature of the injuries shows that there were eleven punctured wounds – Weapon of offence was a firearm – Presence of 11 punctured and bleeding wounds as well as the use of a fire arm leave no doubt that there was an intention to murder – Thus, the second part of s.307, IPC is attracted in the present case – Judgment of the High Court overlooks material parts of the evidence and suffers from perversity – Judgement of the High Court set aside and the order of conviction by the Trial court u/s.307, IPC is restored.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 The evidence establishes that the injuries were caused by a fire-arm. The multiplicity of wounds indicates that the respondent fired at the injured more than once. The fact that hurt has been caused by the respondent is sufficiently proven. Proof of grievous or life-threatening hurt is not a sine qua non for the offence under Section 307 of the Penal Code. The lack of forensic evidence to prove grievous or a life-threatening injury cannot be a basis to hold that Section 307 is inapplicable. The intention of the accused can be ascertained from the actual injury, if any, as well as from surrounding circumstances. Among other things, the nature of the weapon used and the severity of the blows inflicted can be considered to infer intent. [Paras 11, 16][1080-D; 1081-D-E]
1.2 In the present case, the nature of the injuries shows that there were eleven punctured wounds. The weapon of offence was a firearm. The presence of 11 punctured and bleeding wounds as well as the use of a fire arm leave no doubt that there was an intention to murder. Thus, the second part of Section 307 of the Penal Code is attracted in the present case. The judgement of the High Court overlooks material parts of the evidence and suffers from perversity. The judgement of the High Court is set aside and the order of conviction by the Trial court under Section
307 of the Penal Code is restored. [Paras 17, 18][1082-C-D] State of Maharashtra v. Balram Bama Patil (1983) 2 SCC 28; State of M P v. Saleem (2005) 5 SCC 554 : [2005] 1 Suppl. SCR 562; Jage Ram v. State of Haryana (2015) 11 SCC 366 : [2015] 11 SCR 1004; Pasupuleti Siva Ramakrishna Rao v. State of Andhra Pradesh (2014) 5 SCC 369 : [2014] 1 SCR 1139 – relied on.
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.