LexBIPIN BIHARI versus STATE OF M.P.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
...
. ;.
..
···•.
-....
BIPIN .BIHARI
.V.
··.STATE OF M .. P •.... ·
SEPTEMBER 20; ioo6
[ARIJIT PASA Y AT AND LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA; JJ.)
.·
··-:
-
'
.
.
.
.
. .
.
-.. . :
Penal Code, I 860; S.307: .
'
-
'• ..
.. . · Acc~sed r~straini~g ;ister-mc1mv of co~plainani fro',; cuuing the crops-
. C · C~mplainant intervene~A~cused fired giiii injitring the c~mplaina~t~Trial
. Court found aciwed guiltY of committing crime under Section. 307 and .
· . sentenced him ilnpris;,,,ment for life anJ also imposed fine..,.Conviction affirmed ·
· by HighCourlreduCing the sentence hut increasing the fine to Rs.30,0001-·-.
On appeal; Held: For eo1JVlction under Section 307, inflictio~ of bodily injury.
D .capable of causing death is not e~sential-lntent to com wit ihe crime coupied
1i•ith soine _ol'er{act in execution thereof is sufficient to justify ihe cOnviction-·
lnttntion could be .ascertained from nature of injury inflicted and also other .
Q11endini circ;un1staiices-:-ln the faCts and CircumstanCes of the case~·custOdial
sentence oftwa years ds imposed~annoi be.termed lo beharsh considering .
. the nature of injury so inflicted by the accuse~However, the fi~e imposed
· E appears to. be on higher side, hence reduced to Rs,15,0001-Sentencing .
. . . On thefaieful day,"the complainant was gl'a~ing his ox in the.field
and.his sister~in-law was cutting the. crops. On hearing her cry for help,
... ·the complainant rushed towards her and found ihat the accused/appellant
p· was restraining his sister-in-law from cutting the crops and he was.
carrying a gun. When the complainant intervened, he was threatened of
dire consequences by the accused. Thereafter, he fired the gun injuring
·the complainant.· At thatjuncture, ·som~ persons arrived at the· spot. On
seeing them, the accused fled away.
G
The incident was reported at the police station by the injured
complainant/victim. The police, after completing the .investigation,
submitted the charge-sheet in the Court. The trial Court found the accused
guilty of committing the crime under Section· 307 IPC and convicted and
sentenced him to imprisonment for l[f<. The con.viction was affirmed by·
the High Court in appeal but the sentence. was ·reduced to two years and
H
412
BIPIN BIHARI v. STATEOFM.P.
413
fine was increased to Rs.J0,000/-. Hence the present appeaL ·
A
Appellant contended that the High Court was not-justified in-holding· ·
that the- tonviCtion hast;. be made in terms of Section 307 IPC; and that
the fine as imposed is harsh and unreasonable •.
Disposing of the appeal, the.Court
HELD: I.I. It is sufficient to ju~tify a co~victi~n under Section 307
B
if there is present an intent coupled with some overt act in execution
thereof. It is noi 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 C
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 Sections makes a distinction between
the act of the accused and its result, if any. The Court has lo see whether
the act, irrespective of its result, was done with the intention or knowledge D
and under circumstances mentioned in the Section. An attempt in order
to be criminal need not be the penultimate act. (415-F-G(
. Sarju Prasad v. Slale of Bihar, AIR (1965) SC 843; Stale of
Maharashtra v. Balram Barna Patil and Ors., (1983( 2 SCC 28; Girija Shankar
v. State of U.f., JT (2004) 2 SC 140; Vasanl Vithu Jadhav v. State of E
Maharashlra, (2004) AIR SCW 1523 and Bappa @ Bapu v. State of
Maharashtra & Anr., (2004( 6 SCC 485, relied on •.
1.2. The imprisonment cannot be termed to be harsh considering the
nature of the injury inflicted by the accused on the victim. However, the
fine appears to be on higher side. The same is reduced to Rs. 15,000/-. · F
. '
.
. (416-C-D(
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No, 986
of2006.
' .
, From the final Judgment and Order dated 3.12.2004 of the High Court G
of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur in Criminal Appeal No. 87912004.
. -·
Ram_esh Chandra Pandey for the Appellant.
-Dr. N.M. Ghatate and C.D. Singh for the.Respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
H
414.
·SUPREME COURrREPORTS [2006] SUPP. 6 S.C.R.
A
ARIJITPASAYAT, J. LExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.