STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH versus HARJEET SINGH & ANR.

Citation: [2019] 4 S.C.R. 564 · Decided: 19-02-2019 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: L. NAGESWARA RAO · Disposal: Disposed off

cites 4 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
564
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 4 S.C.R.
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
v.
HARJEET SINGH & ANR.
(Criminal Appeal No. 1190 of 2009)
FEBRUARY 19, 2019
[L. NAGESHWARA RAO AND INDU MALHOTRA, JJ.]
Penal Code, 1860 – ss.307 & 324 – Complainant case was
that he and his brothers were attacked by accused/respondent No.1,
accused/respondent no.2 and an unidentified person – Complainant
alleged that accused/respondent No.1 stabbed him several times
with a knife – Trial court convicted the accused/respondent no.1
u/s.307 IPC and accused/respondent No.2 was convicted u/s. 307
r/w. 34 IPC – High Court converted the conviction of the accused/
respondent no.1 from s.307 IPC to s.324 IPC and accused/
respondent No.2 was acquitted – On appeal, held: In instant case,
a perusal of facts and the record clearly indicate that the prosecution
has proved beyond reasonable doubt that accused/respondent No.1
had inflicted four injuries on the complainant by using a knife –
The multiple blows inflicted would prove the intention of causing
bodily injury likely to cause death of the victim – Stabbing a person
with a knife, near his vital organs would in most circumstances lead
to the death of the victim, thereby falling squarely within the meaning
of s.307 IPC – The findings of the High Court that injuries inflicted
were on ‘unimportant parts’ of the complainant’s body was erroneous
– Thus, judgment of the High Court qua accused/respondent No.1
set aside – Insofar, accused/respondent No.2 is concerned, the High
Court was right that there was lack of consistency in the deposition
of the prosecution witnesses with respect to the role of the accused/
respondent No.2 – Thus, Judgment of High Court qua respondent
No.2 confirmed.
Disposing of the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. In the present case, a perusal of the facts and
the record clearly indicate that the prosecution has proved beyond
reasonable doubt that Accused /Respondent No. 1 had inflicted
four injuries, on the Complainant by using a knife. The oral
   [2019] 4 S.C.R. 564
   564
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
565
testimonies of P.W. 4 and P.W. 5 – the brothers of the Complainant
who were eye witnesses, stood corroborated by the medical
evidence. [Para 5.1] [572-B-C]
2.  The act of stabbing a person with a sharp knife, which is
a dangerous weapon, near his vital organs, would ordinarily lead
to the death of the victim. The weapon of offence was a 4-inch
long knife which is a dangerous weapon. The Accused /
Respondent No. 1 had assaulted the Complainant with the said
knife, and inflicted multiple injuries on his chest, scapula, back,
and buttocks. The multiple blows inflicted by the Accused /
Respondent No. 1 would prove the intention of causing bodily
injury likely to cause the death of the victim. Stabbing a person
with a knife, near his vital organs would in most circumstances
lead to the death of the victim, thereby falling squarely within the
meaning of Section 307.  Section 307 uses the term “hurt” which
has been explained in Section 319, I.P.C.; and not “grievous hurt”
within the meaning of Section 320 I.P.C.  If a person causes hurt
with the intention or knowledge that he may cause death, it would
attract Section 307. [Para 5.6] [573-C-F]
3.  If the assailant acts with the intention or knowledge that
such action might cause death, and hurt is caused, then the
provisions of Section 307 I.P.C. would be applicable. There is no
requirement for the injury to be on a “vital part” of the body,
merely causing ‘hurt’ is sufficient to attract S. 307 I.P.C.
[Para 5.6] [574-C-D]
4.  In the Impugned Judgment, the High Court incorrectly
held that the Prosecution has been unable to prove that the
Accused /Respondent No. 1 had the intention to commit murder
of the Complainant. The motive of assault by the Accused/
Respondent No. 1 on the Complainant-P.W. 2 was clearly
established by the Prosecution, since there was an existing
dispute which was the subject matter of a court case.  It is evident
from the evidence adduced before the Court, and the
circumstances surrounding the case, that the prosecution has
been able to prove the case against Accused /Respondent No. 1
beyond reasonable doubt. The prosecution has successfully
proved that the Accused /Respondent No. 1 had attempted to
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH v. HARJEET SINGH & ANR.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
566
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 4 S.C.R.
murder the Complainant and the requirements of Section 307
are made out from the ocular evidence which are corroborated
by the 

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