HARI MOHAN MANDAL versus STATE OF JHARKHAND

Citation: [2004] 3 S.C.R. 98 · Decided: 08-03-2004 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: DORAISWAMY RAJU · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
HARi MOHAN MANDAL 
v. 
STATE OF JHARKHAND 
MARCH I 8, 2004 
B 
[DORAISWAMY RAJU AND ARIJIT PASA YAT, JJ.] 
Penal Code, 1860; Ss. /09, 1208, 302 and 307: 
Assault and murder-Trial Court convicted main accused for committing 
C offence under Section 302 and two co-accused under Section 307 and sentenced 
them according~y-Afjirming conviction of the main accused and one of the 
co-accused (appellant) under Sections 302 and 307 respectively, High Court 
directed acquittal of the other co-accused-On appeal, Held: Injury inflicted 
by the accused need not necessarily result in the death of the person assaulted 
D but knowledge/intention to cause death coupled with some overt act in execution 
thereof are sufficient to justifa. conviction under Section 307-Since no 
deficiency in the testimony of the eyewitnesses found and injury inflicted was 
on the vital part of the victim's body, Section 307 rightly invoked-However, 
in the absence of any pre-meditation/planning to kill, custodial sentence reduced 
to 5 years. 
E 
According to the prosecution, on the fateful day, deceased along with 
PWI and others had gone for husking paddy in a mill. Three accused 
persons were also present there. Both the parties had entered into an 
altercation on husking of their paddy first/earlier to the other. In the 
F process, the appellant/co-accused forcibly put his paddy into the hauler. 
When the deceased objected, the main accused gave 3-4 knife blows on 
his abdomen, which has resulted in his death. In the meanwhile, one of 
the co-accused/appellant slabbed PWI on his head and eye and another 
co-accused further assaulted him; and after committing the crime all the 
accused persons ned away. A complaint was lodged in the Police Station. 
G Police investigated the matter and submitted the charge sheet under 
Sections 302, 307, 109/34 IPC against 5 accused persons. Trial Court found 
three of them guilty for committing offences and convicted the main 
accused under Section 302 !PC and two co-accused under Section 307 IPC 
and sentenced them accordingly. However, it acquitted the other two co-
H 
98 
./ 
I 
I 
y 
HAR! MOHAN MANDAL v. STATE OF .lHARKHAND 
99 
accused. On appeal, High Court affirmed the conviction and sentence in A 
respect of the main accused and the co-accused (appellant) but found the 
evidence insufficient in respect of other co-accused and directed his 
acquittal. Hence;the present appeal by the convicted accused. 
It was contended by the appellant that the eyewitnesses were not 
reliable and thus their version was not believable; that since the occurrence B 
of the incident was without any premeditation, offence under Section 307 
could not be made out; and that since the injuries inflicted by the appellant 
on PWl were in the nature of simple hurt, awarding of sentence of life 
imprisonment was harsh. 
Disposing of the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. There is no deficiency in the evidence of PWs. l and 5 
which could warrant its rejection. 1100-D] 
c 
1.2. It is not necessary that the injury actually caused to the victim D 
of the assault should be sufficient under ordinary circumstances to cause 
the death of the person assaulted. What the Court has to see is whether 
the act, irrespective of its result, was done with the intention or knowledge 
and under circumstances mentioned in Section 307 IPC. An attempt in 
order to be criminal need not be the penultimate act. It is sufficient to 
justify a conviction in law, if there is present an intent coupled with some E 
overt act in execution thereof. Therefore, it is not correct to acquit an 
accused of the charge under the Section merely because the injuries 
inflicted on the victim were in the nature of a simple hurt. The 
circumstance that the injury inflicted by the accused was simple or minor 
will not by itself rule out application of Section 307 IPC. The determinative 
question is intention or knowledge, as the case may be, and not nature of F 
the injury. [103-A-D; G] 
State of Maharashtra v. Bairam Barna Patil and Ors., 11983] 2 SCC 
28; R. Prakash v. State of Karnataka, [2004] 2 SC 78 and Sarju Prasad v. 
State of Bihar, AIR (1965) SC 843, referred to. 
G 
1.3. The first injury was certainly on a vital part and taking into 
account the injuries on the various parts of the body of the victim, Section 
307 IPC has been rightly invoked and the accused has rightly been 
convicted for committing the offence punishable under the Section. 
However, taking into account

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.