VASANT VITHU JADHAV versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

Citation: [2004] 2 S.C.R. 861 · Decided: 09-03-2004 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: Y.K. SABHARWAL · Disposal: Dismissed
Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

-
V ASANT VITHU JADHA V 
A 
v. 
ST A TE OF MAHARASHTRA 
MARCH 9, 2004 
[Y.K. SABHARWAL AND-ARIJIT PASA\'.AT, JJ.] 
B 
Penal Code, 1860: 
Section 307-Attempt to murder-Accused fired a gun from close range 
at the victim thereby inflicting injuries on him-Trial court found the injuries C 
to be simple in nature and convicted the accused under S. 324 !PC-However, 
High Court convicted the accused under S 307 IPC-Correctness of-Held: 
The fact that injury was simple or minor would not, by itself, rule out application 
of S. 307 !PC-The determinative question was intention or knowledge and 
not nature of the injury-It is not necessary that the injury inflicted on the D 
victim should be sufficient, under ordinary circumstances, to cause the death 
of the person assaulted-Hence, High Court was justified in convicting the 
accused under S. 307 !PC. 
The appellant-accused fired a gun from a very close range at the 
victim when he was sleeping. The bullet broke into pieces and three such E 
pieces struck the accused thereby causing injuries to him. 
The appellant was charge-sheeted for committing an offence under 
Section 307 of the Penal Code, 1860. The trial court found that the injuries 
inflicted on the victim were in the nature of simple hurt and; therefore, 
convicted the appellant for an offence under Section 324 IPC. However, F 
the High Court convicted the appellant under Section 307 IPC and 
imposed a sentence of 10 years RI. Hence the appeal. 
Dismissing the appeal, but modifying the sentences, the Court 
HELD: 1. To justify a conviction under Section 307 of the Penal G 
Code, 1860 it is not essential that bodily injury capable of causing 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 
861 
H 
862 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2004] 2 S.C.R. 
A circumstances, and may even, in some cases, be ascertained without any 
reference at all to actual wounds. Section 307 IPC makes a distinction 
B 
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 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 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 knowledge 
and under circumstances mentioned in Section 307 IPC. An attempt in 
order to be criminal need not be the penultimate act. 
C 
[865-G-H; 866-A-B) 
2. It is sufficient to justify a conviction under Section 307 IPC if there 
is present an intent coupled with some overt act in execution thereof. It is 
not essential that bodily injury capable of causing death should have been 
inflicted. The Court has to see whether the act, irrespective of its result, 
n· was done with the intention or knowledge and under circumstances 
mentioned in the Section. Therefore, it is not correct to acquit an accused 
of the charge under Section 307 IPC merely because the injuries inflicted 
on the victim were in the nature of a simple hurt. (866-C-D] 
State of Maharashtra v. Bairam Rama Patil, (1983] 2 SCC 28 and Sarju 
E Prasad v. State of Bihar, AIR (1965) SC 843 relied on. 
Ram Prasad v. State of UP., [1982] 2 SCC 149 and Kundan Singh v. 
State of Punjab, (1982) 3 SCC 213, referred to. 
3. Whether there was intention to kill or knowledge that death will 
F be caused is a question of fact and would 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 the application of Section 307 IPC. The 
determinative question is intention or knowledge, as the case may be, and 
not nature of the injury. [866-F-G) 
G 
4. In the case at hand the accused fired a gun from a very close range 
of about 6 to 8 feet aiming at the victim when he was sleeping. The bullet 
broke into pieces and three such pieces struck the accused. Both intention 
and knowledge in terms of Section 307 can be attributed to the accused . 
Therefore, the High Court was justified in recording conviction of the 
H accused-appellant under Section 307 IPC. Custodial sentence of 10 years 
-"'"· 
-
VASANT VITHU JADHAV ''·
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.