LexSADAKAT KOTWAR AND ANR. versus THE STATE OF JHARKHAND
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B C D E F G H 332 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2021] 7 S.C.R. SADAKAT KOTWAR AND ANR. v. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND (Criminal Appeal No. 1316 of 2021) NOVEMBER 12, 2021 [M. R. SHAH AND A. S. BOPANNA, JJ.] Penal Code, 1860: s.307 r/w s.34 – Grievous injuries on vital parts of the body – Prosecution case was that appellant no.1 stabbed PW-7 with a dagger in her ribs and appellant no.2 stabbed PW-8 with a dagger on right side of his stomach and on left ribs – Trial Court convicted appellants-accused for offence under s.307 r/w s.34 – High Court upheld the order of conviction – On appeal, held: There was no reason to doubt the testimony of the witnesses particularly PW7 and PW8 who were injured eye-witnesses – It was not the case of appellants-accused that the offence occurred out of a sudden quarrel or that the blow was stuck in the heat of the moment – As the deadly weapons were used and injuries were grievous in nature causing injury near chest and stomach which can be said to be vital part of the body, appellants were rightly convicted under s.307 r/w s.34 – Concurrent findings recorded by the courts below holding the appellants guilty do not require any interference in exercise of powers under Art.136 of the Constitution of India. Dismissing the appeal, the Court HELD: It is not the case of the accused that the offence occurred out of a sudden quarrel. It also does not appear that the blow was stuck in the heat of the moment. On the contrary, considering the depositions of PW7 and PW8, the accused persons pushed and took the husband of PW7 out of the house and thereafter the accused caused the injuries on PW7 and PW8 and stabbed dagger. Thus, deadly weapons were used and the injuries are found to be grievous in nature. As observed by this Court in catena of decisions nobody can enter into the mind of the accused and his intention has to be ascertained from the weapon used, part of the body chosen for assault and the nature of the injury caused. Considering the case on hand on the said principles, when [2021] 7 S.C.R. 332 332 A B C D E F G H 333 the deadly weapon – dagger has been used, there was a stab injury on the stomach and near the chest which can be said to be on the vital part of the body and the nature of injuries caused, it is rightly held that the appellants have committed the offence under Section 307 IPC. [Para 4][335-F-H; 336-A-B] State of M.P. v. Mansingh (2003) 10 SCC 414 : [2003] 2 Suppl. SCR 460 – relied on. Jai Narain Mishra and Ors. v. State of Bihar (1971) 3 SCC 762 – held inapplicable. Mahesh Balmiki v. State of M.P. (2000) 1 SCC 319 – referred to. Case Law Reference [2003] 2 Suppl. SCR 460 relied on Para 2 (2000) 1 SCC 319 referred to Para 4 (1971) 3 SCC 762 held inapplicable Para 5 CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 1316 of 2021. From the Judgment and Order dated 01.07.2019 of the High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi in Criminal Appeal (SJ) No. 393 of 2004. Shree Prakash Sinha, Ms. Mohua Sinha, Rakesh Mishra, Nawalendra Kumar, Shekhar Kumar, Advs. for the Appellants. Arunabh Chowdhury, AAG, Ms. Barnali Chowdhury, Ms. Pragya Baghel, Shantanu Sagar, Vishnu Sharma, Abhishek Roy, Advs. for the Respondent. The Judgement of the Court was delivered by M. R. SHAH, J. 1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order dated 01.07.2019 passed by the High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi in Criminal Appeal (SJ) No. 393 of 2004 by which the High Court has upheld the conviction of the appellants herein for the offences under Section 307 read with Section 34 of the IPC, the original accused have preferred the present appeal. SADAKAT KOTWAR AND ANR. v. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND A B C D E F G H 334 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2021] 7 S.C.R. 2. We have gone through the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court as well as the judgment and order passed by the learned Trial Court convicting the accused for the offences under Section 307 read with Section 34 of the IPC. The prosecution as such has examined in all 10 witnesses in support of the case of the prosecution, out of which, there are two injured eye-witnesses PW7 and PW8. Both of them have supported the case of the prosecution. Even the other witnesses examined by the prosecution i.e. PW1, PW2, PW4 and PW10 are consistent in their statements and have fully supported the case of the prosecution. The prosecution has been successful in proving the case against the accused that Appellant No.2 - Refaz Kotwar stabbed PW8 - Mohd.
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.