LexSTATE OF MADHYA PRADESH versus IMRAT AND ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
~ t 'i [2008] 10 S.C.R. 847 STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH A v. IMRAT AND ANR. (Criminal Appeal No. 1059 of 2008) JULY 11, 2008 B [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND P. SATHASIVAM, JJ.] Penal Code, 1860- s 307 rlw s. 34 -Attempt to.murder- Conviction under - Essential requisite for - Stated - On facts, over a property dispute, accused caused six injuries to com- c plainant with lathi and farsa, two of the injuries grievous in na- ture - Conviction uls 307 r/w s. 34 with seven years RI - How- ever, High Court convicting uls 326 · rlw s. 34 and sentence reduced to period already undergone - Held: Not justified - High Court ignored that injuries were grievous in nature and 0 were caused by use of sufficient force by sharp edged weap- ons - Injuries were so serious that both investigating agency and doctor felt that dying declaration was to be recorded - Thus, order of High Court set aside and that of trial Court re- stored. According to the prosecution case, over a property dispute accused persons armed with lathi and farsa, caused six injuries to the complainant. Respondent told E the co-accused that the complainant was to be killed. On hearing this co-accused hit on the head of complainant F with farsa twice. Respondent gave a lathi blow on the wrist of right hand, left hand and left foot. FIR was lodged. In- vestigation was carried out. Witnesses were examined. The doctor examined the injuries and stated that the in- jury No. 1 and 2 were caused by sharp edged weapons. G The dying declaration was recorded. Trial court relying on the evidence of the witnesses, convicted the accused u/s 307 read with s. 34 IPC and imposed seven years rig- orous imprisonment with fine of Rs. 1000/-. High Court 847 H 848 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 10 S.C.R. A held that there being no material to show that injury No. 1 and 2 were dangerous to life or were sufficient in ordi- nary course of nature to cause death, convicted the ac- cused u/s 326 r/w 34 IPC and reduced the sentence to the B period already undergone. Hence the present appeal. Allowing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1.1 To justify a conviction u/s 307 IPC it is not essential that bodily injury capahle of causing death should have been inflicted. Although .the nature of injury c actually caused may often give considerable assistance in coming to a finding as to .the inte.ntion of the accused, such intention may also be deduced from other circum- stances, and may even, in some cases, b~ ascertained without any reference at all to actual wounds. The Sec- D tion makes a distinction between an ~ct 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 culprit would be liable under this Section. It is not necessary that the in- E jury actually caused to the victim 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, irrespeetive of its result, was done with the intention or knowledge anCI under circumstances mentioned in the Section. An attempt in order to be crimi- F nal need not be the penultimate act. It is sufficient in law, if there· is present an intent coupled with some overt act in execution thereof. Therefore, an accused charged u/s 307 IPC cannot be acquitted merely because the injuries inflicted on the victim were in the natu're of a simple hurt. G [Paras 10 and 11] [852 F- 853 A-D] H State of Maharashtra v. Bairam Barna 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; State of M.P v. Saleem @ Chamaru and Anr. 2005 (5) STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH v. IMRAT 849 &ANR. SCC 554; Sarju Prasad v. State of Bihar AIR 1965 SC 843 - A relied on. 1.2 Whether there was intention to kill or knowledge that death will be caused is a question of fact and would .. -1 depend on the facts of a given case. The circumstances B that the injury inflicted by the accused was simple or mi- nor 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. The basic dif- ferences between Sections 333 and 325 IPC are that s. 325 gets attracted where grievous hurt is caused whereas c s. 333 gets attracted if such hurt is caused to a public se
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.