LexSTATE OF M.P. versus KASHIRAM & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2009] 1 S.C.R. 806 A STATE OF M.P. V. KASHIRAM & ORS. (Criminal Appeal No. 191 of 2009) 8 FEBRUARY 2, 2009 [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND ASOK KUMAR GANGUL Y, JJ.] ... Penal Code, 1860 - s. 307 - Applicability of - Discussed c - Held: An accused charged under s.307 cannot be acquitted merely because injuries inflicted on the victim were in the nature of a simple hurt - Determinative question is intention or knowledge, as the case may be, and not nature of the injury. D Sentence/Sentencing - Just and appropriate sentence - Duty of Court - Held: Courts required to award proper sentence having regard to nature of the offence and the manner in which it was executed or committed - Undue sympathy to impose inadequate sentence would harm the E justice system and undermine public confidence in the efficacy of law According to the prosecution, on account of an earlier enmity, the respondents tied the hands and legs of PWS, pressed his mouth with the help of clothes and F thereafter chopped off the lower part of his left leg. The respondents were allegedly armed with rifle, sticks and axe. The trial court held the respondents guilty under s.307 rlw ss.149 and 148 IPC and sentenced each of them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years for the ·G main offence and 6 months rigorous imprisonment for the ancillary offences. On appeal, the High Court held that ......... chopping of the leg from the body could not be treated -,-r- sufficient to cause death and appropriate conviction would thus be under s.326 r/w s.149 IPC and thereafter H 806 STATE OF M.P. v. KASHIRAM & ORS. 807 ...,._ reduced the custodial sentence to the period already A undergone. In appeal to this Court, it was contended that the High Court had completely overlooked the gruesome nature of the offence and the evidence of PW1, the Doctor B that the injury could have caused death. ---.. Allowing the appeal, the Court ,, HELD: 1.1. To justify a conviction under s.307 IPC, it is not essential that bodily injury capable of causing c 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 intention of the accused, such intention may also be deduced from other circumstances, and may even, in some cases, be D .., ascertained without any reference at all to actual wounds. The Section makes a distinction between an act of the accused and its result, if any. Such an act may not be attended by any result so far as the person assaulted is concerned, but still there may be cases in which the E culprit would be liable under this Section. It is not necessary that the injury actually caused to the victim of the assault should be sufficient under ordinary A 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 F knowledge and under circumstances mentioned in the Section. An attempt in order to be criminal need not be the penultimate act. It is sufficient in law, if there is present an intent coupled with some overt act in execution G thereof. [Para 9) (814-E-H] '· "'I 1.2. The Court has to see whether the act, irrespective of its result, was done with the intention or knowledge and under circumstances mentioned in s.307. Therefore, an accused charged under s.307 IPC cannot be acquitted H 808 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 1 S.C.R. A merely because the injuries inflicted on the victim were in the nature of a simple hurt. [Para 10] [815-A-C] 1.3. Whether there was intention to kill or knowledge that death will be caused is a question of fact and would 8 depend on the facts of a given case. The circumstances that the injury inflicted by the accused was simple or minor will not by itself rule out application of s.307 IPC. The determinative question is intention or knowledge, as the case may be, and not nature of the injury. [Para 12] C [815-E] State of Maharashtra v. Bairam Bama Patil and Ors. (1983) 2 SCC 28; Girija Shanker v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2004) 3 SCC 793; R. Parkash v. State of Karnataka JT (2004) 2 SC 348 and State of Madhya Pradesh v. Saleem D @ Chamaru & Anr. (2005) (5) SCC 554, relied on. 2.1. Undue sympathy to impose inadequate sentence would do more harm to the justice system to undermine the public confidence in the efficacy of law and society E could not long
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.