LexPRAKASH CHANDRA YADAV versus STATE OF BIHAR AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
+ _J PRAKASHCHANDRAYADAV A v. STATE OF BIHAR AND ORS. OCTOBER 12, 2007 [S.B. SINHA AND HARJIT SINGH BEDI, JJ.] B Penal Code, 1860; Ss. 109 Band 307 /Explosive Substance Act; _.,, Ss. 3 and 4: Attempt to murder-Accused hurled bomb towards victim and ' C other with the intention to kill them-FJR.-lnvestigation-Trial Court found accused persons guilty of committing offence punishable u/s.307/109B !PC but acquitting them from charges ulss.3 and 4 of the Explosive Substances Act-Dismissing Revision Petition filed by D the-victim .. High Court allowed the appeal of the accused-On appeal, Held: Injury on the part of the victim is not a pre-requisite for ~ convicting the accused uls.307 !PC-However, intention and, knowledge are the necessary ingredients for attracting Section 307 t • !PC-Applying the legal principles/provisions u/s. 307 !PC to the facts of the present case, judgment of the High Court cannot be sustained- E Hence, the matter remitted to High Court for consideration afresh. On 3.2.1994, when the informant was returning on his motorcycle along with PW7, who was sitting on the back seat, • accused as also one unknown person, were standing on the road. The • F accused ordered to kill the informant whereupon the co-accused "( took out a bomb from his bag and hurled the same towards them. t , The bomb, however, did not explode. Another bomb was hurled by the accused towards the informant. It exploded but the informant did not sustain any injury. Several persons assembled at the spot G whereupon, the accused allegedly chased them with his licensed gun. The incident was witnessed by several witnesses. Besides the victim, 1 -·f the prosecution examined PW-3, brother of the informant, PW-4, cousin of the informant, PW-2, PW-5, father of the informant and 231 H 232 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 11 S.C.R. A PW-7, PW-9, Assistant Director, Regional Forensic Science Laboratory. Motive for commission of the offence is said to be rivalry inter se between the parties in regard to grant ofrailway contract(s). Trial Court found the accused guilty for commission of an offence under Section 307 /109B of the Indian Penal Code but acquitted them B from the charges under Sections 3 and 4 of the Explosive Substance Act on the ground that no sanction from the appropriate authority had been obtained therefor. Accused was convicted under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years and co-accused was convicted under c Section 307/109 IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years. An appeal was preferred by the convicts before the High Court. The first informant also filed a criminal revision application against the judgment and order of the trial Court, which was allowed by the High Court dismissing the D appeals filed by the convicts. Hence the present appeal. Allowing the appeal, the Court HELD:l.1. From the provision u/s.307 IPC, it is evident that first part thereof does not contemplate that receipt of any injury on E the part of the victim is a pre-requisite for convicting an accused thereunder. In the event injuries are received, the second part of Section 307 would be attracted. The necessary ingredients for attracting the first part of Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code is intention or knowledge. [Para 12) [235-G; 236-A) F 1.2. The decision of this Court in Parsuram Pandey & Ors. v. State of Bihar, itself is an authority for the proposition that intention of or knowledge relating to the commission of murder and the doing of an act towards it are the two ingredients of the offence under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code. The High Court's .iudgment, G therefore, cannot be sustained. It is set aside accordingly. The matter is remitted to the High Court for consideration of the matter afresh. [Paras 14 and 15) [237-A, B, CJ Parsuram Pandey & Ors. v. State of Bihar (2004) 13 SCC 189, H relied on. \-. I ' ., . ' \- ~. . -_,_ PRAKASHCHANDRA YADAVv. STATE [SINHA,].] 233 __j 1.3. It is clarified that the Court has not gone into the merit of A the matter. [Para 15] (237-B, C] CRIMINAL APPELLATE mRISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 1427of2007. From the Judgment and final Order dated 22.12.2006 of the High B Court of Judicature at Patna in Cr. Revision No. 241 of2001 and Criminal Appeal No. 4 7 of 1999. _, S. Chandra Shekhar for the Appellant. V. Shekhar, Manish Kumar
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.