LexCHHANGA @ MANOJ versus STATE OF M. P.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2017]2 S.C.R. 27 CHHANGA @ MANOJ v. STATE OF M. P. (Criminal Appeal No. 898 of 2005) FEBRUARY 28, 2017 [R. F. NARIMAN AND MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR, JJ.] Penal Code, 1860 : s. 307 r!w. s. 34 - Prosecution under - For attempt to murder - By appellant-accused alongwith three other accused - Allegation that one of the co-accused hurled two bombs at the exhortation of the appellant-accused - Courts below convicted all the accused - On appeal by appellant-accused plea that in view of simple nature of injuries and in view of his role, offence u!s. 307 not made out - Held: In order to make out charge uls. 307 an intention coupled with some common act in execution thereof is enough - It is not essential that bodily injury capable of causing death should have been inflicted - In the present case, in view of nature of weapons, it can be inferred that the intention was to cause death - Exhortation by the appellant-accused attracted the charge uls. 307 rlw. s. 34 - Conviction affirmed. Sentence/Sentencing: Conviction uls. 307 rlw s. 34 !PC - Sentenced to three years imprisonment - Plea to reduce the sentence to the period already undergone i.e. about 2 years - Held: The accused got away very lightly - Undue sympathy leading to inadequate sentence would do more harm to the justice system and would undermine public confidence in the efficacy of law - Sentence upheld. Dismissing the appeal, the· Court HELD: 1.1 It is not essential that bodily injury capable of causing death shonld have been inflicted in order that the charge under Section 307 IPC be made out. It is enough if there is an intention coupled with some common act in execution thereof. [Para 7] (30-E] 27 A B c D E F G H 28 A B c D E F G SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2017] 2 S.C.R. 1.2 In the present case, the nature of the weapon used pre- dominates. Two bombs were hurled, which are lethal weapons, from which it can safely be inferred that the intention was to cause death. Also, the words uttered by appellant-accused, namely, that the complainant ought to be killed, lend further credence to this view. The motive of the accused has also been made out, namely, that the intention was to kill the person in the shop as he was an informer. True, the nature of the injuries in the present case was stated to be simple, but this is only because of the fortuitous circumstance that the bomb exploded at a distance far from PW 1. Therefore, it is clear that Accused No.4 (appellant) in coming together with the other three accused and going together with them, and in shouting the words "kill him" certainly attracted the charge under Section 307 read with Section 34 IPC. The concurrent judgments of the Courts below do not need to be disturbed. [Para 8] [31-B-E] State of MP. v. Kashiram and Others (2009) 4 SCC 26 : [2009] 1 SCR 806; Jage Ram and Others v. State of Haryana (2015) 11 SCC 366 : [2015] 11 SCR 1004; Sevaka Perumal and Anr. " State of Tamil Nadu (1991) 3 SCC 471 : [1991] 2 SCR 711 - relied on. 2. Undue sympathy leading to imposition of inadequate sentence would do more harm to the justice system and would undermine public confidence in the efficacy of law. The appellant appears to have got away lightly. Therefore, there is no reason to interfere, in the concurrent Judgments, under Article 136 of the Constitution of India. [Paras 10, 11, 12] [31-G-H; 32-A] f2009J 1 SCR 806 [2015] 11 SCR 1004 f1991J 2 SCR 711 Case Law Reference relied on relied on relied on Para 7 Para 7 Para 11 CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal A.ppeal No. 898 of2005. From the Judgment and Order dated 17.12.2004/29.04.2005 of the High Court ofM. P. at Jabalpur in Criminal Appeal No. 37of1990 H and MCR. Case No. 3142 of2005. CHHANGA@ MANOJ v. STATE OF M.P. 29 Dinesh Kumar Garg, Abhishek Garg, Dhananjay Garg, Deepak A Mishra, Advs. for the Appellant. Ms. Bansuri Swaraj, Ms. Shreya Bhatnagar, C. D. Singh, Advs. for the Respondent. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by R. F. NARIMAN, J. I. This is an appeal filed by Accused No.4- appellant herein who was convicted under Section 307 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code along with the other accused and sentenced to imprisonment for a period of three years by the learned Additional Sessions Judge vide Judgment dated 8'h January, 1990. In an appeal preferred to the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur, the said Court concurred with the findings
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.