1 2025:CGHC:13793 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 637 of 2024 1. Champesh Marai S/o Shiv Marai, Aged About 25 Years R/o Rajeev Na- gar, Ward No.02, Durg, Police Station And District Durg (Cg) ... Appellant(s) versus 1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Durg, District Durg (Cg.) ---- Respondent For Appellant : Mr. Rudranath Mukarjee, Advocate For Respondent/State : Ms. Sunita Sahu, P.L. Hon'ble Shri Arvind Kumar Verma, Judge Order on Board 22/03/2025 1. With the consent of counsel for the parties, the matter is heard finally at mo- tion stage. 2. This criminal appeal has been filed under Section 374 (2) of Cr.P.C. by the appellant against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 07.02.2024 passed by the learned Sessions Judge Durg, District Durg (C.G.), in Session Trial No. 55/2021, whereby the appellant has been con- victed and sentenced as follows:- Convicted under Sec- tions Sentenced to 307 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 R.I. for 10 years with fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default of payment of fine, addi- 2 tional R.I. for 1 month 3. Briefly stated facts of the case leading to the disposal of this appeal are that on 31.07.2020 at about 09:00 pm, Saurab Sinha (PW-2), Mohit Sinha (PW- 1) Parmanand @ Golu and Rahul Gaidhani (PW-4) and Jeevan Yadav were sitting near Rajesh General Stores. The General Stores was closed due to lock-down. At that point of time, the accused arrived at the place with a knife and assaulted Saurabh Sinha at his belly. The injured tried to defend himself from the assault as such he received injury on his hand also. After assaulting, the accused ran away from the place of incident. Mohit Sinha (PW-1) chased the accused, but could not caught him, then Mohit Sinha and Jeevan Yadav took injured to police station and then to District Hospital and from there to Hi-Tek Hospital for further treatment. The injured was admitted at that Hospital for 3 days and was treated accordingly. Therefore, the police has registered the crime and filed the charge-sheet for the offence under Section 307 of IPC. 4. So as to prove the complicity of the accused/appellant in the crime in question, prosecution has examined as many as 9 witnesses. Statement of the accused/appellant under Section 313 Cr.PC was also recorded in which he pleaded his innocence and false implication in the case. No Defence has been examined in support of its case. 5. After hearing the parties and going through the material available on record including the evidence of the witnesses, learned Sessions Judge Durg, District Durg has convicted and sentenced the accused/appellant as described in paragraph No. 2 of this judgment. Hence this appeal. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the prosecution has utterly failed to prove its case under Section 307 IPC beyond all reasonable 3 doubts. He further submits that as there was no intention on the part of the accused/appellant to cause injury to the victim, the offence under Section 307 IPC is not made out and at the most act of the accused/appellant may fall either under Section 325 or 326 IPC. Alternatively, counsel for the accused/appellant submits that if the conviction part of the judgment impugned is not going to be interfered with, keeping in mind the fact that the accused/appellant has already remained behind the bars from 01.08.2020 to 13.05.2021 and since 07.02.2024 (almost one year and 10 months), the sentence imposed on him may be reduced to the period already undergone. 7. On the other hand, counsel appearing for the State supports the judgment impugned and submits that taking into consideration the statements of the injured/victim (PW-2), eye witness Mohit Sinha (PW-1), and Dr. Naveel Kumar Sharma (PW-06) which gets corroboration from the testimony of other independent witnesses, the findings recorded by the Sessions Judge, Durg District Durg holding the accused/appellant guilty under Section 307 IPC being based on proper appreciation of the evidence on record are fully justified and do not call for any interference in this appeal. 8. Heard counsel for the parties at length and went through the evidence on record with utmost care and caution. 9. From the evidence of Saurab Sinha victim/injured (PW-2) it is apparent that on the date of incident i.e. on 31.07.2020 at around 09:00 pm, near Rajesh General Store, he along with Mohit Sinha, Parmanand and Jeevan Yadav were sitting, at that time, the accused/appellant came and stabbed him in the stomach and ribs. When he tried to defend himself but the knife hit his hand and thereafter accused/appellant fled thereafter. Mohit Singa (PW-1) chased the accused. Thereafter, Mohit and Jeevan took him on a scooter and brought him to the police station and then to the district hospital. From 4 District Hospital Durg, he was referred to Hi-Tek Hospital Junwani Bhilai and he was admitted in Hi-tek Hospital Junwani for 3 days. 10.Mohit Sinha (PW-1) who is the eye witness has supported the statement of injured/victim (PW-2) and deposed that he has lodged the report of the incident as per (Ex.P-1). In cross-examination, he has said that the shop was closed due to lockdown and he and his other companions had no enmity with the accused. Moreover, when the accused stabbed the victim, he ran towards the accused but could not catch him. 11. Dr. Somya Sood (PW-09) who medically examined the victim, found that there was a stab wound on the lower right of chest of the victim in the size of 1 x5 cm, there was a stab wound on the right side of the back in the size of 2cm x1cm x7 cm and there was also a stab wound on the back of the right palm in the size of 1 cm x 1cm x6cm. According to Doctor, the said injury resulted in fracture of the skull bone, which is of serious nature. 12.Dr. Naveel Kumar Sharma (PW-6) who medically examined the victim, has deposed in his statement that on 01.08.2020, injured (PW-2) was brought to hospital for treatment in Hi-Tek Hospital. Considering the circumstances of the injury sustained by the victim, an operation was conducted on the injured person for the injury in his stomach. There was a 1.5 cm deep wound in the liver of his stomach, about 100 ml of blood had flowed inside and blood was flowing. Dr. Rahul Thakur had operated the wound on the back of the wrist of the right hand of the injured. Dr. Naveel stated that injury could be caused by hard and sharp object and the injury sustained by the injured was grievous in nature and if he has not been given treatment on time, he could have died. 13. Now, the question is, whether the trial Court is justified in convicting the appellant for offence under Section 307 of the IPC.? 5 14. At this stage, it would be appropriate to notice Section 307 of the IPC which states as under: - 15. “307. Attempt to murder.—Whoever does any act with such intention or knowledge, and under such circumstances that, if he by that act caused death, he would be guilty of murder, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine; and if hurt is caused to any person by such act, the offender shall be liable either to imprisonment for life, or to such punishment as is hereinbefore mentioned. Attempts by life-convicts.—When any person offending under this section is under sentence of imprisonment for life, he may, if hurt is caused, be punished with death.” 16.The essential ingredients required to be proved in the case of an offence under Section 307 of the IPC are: 17. (i) that the death of a human being was attempted; (ii) that such death was attempted to be caused by, or in consequence of the act of the accused; and (iii) that such act was done with the intention of causing death; or that it was done with the intention of causing such bodily injury as: (a) the accused knew to be likely to cause death; or (b) was sufÏcient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, or that the accused attempted to cause death by doing an act known to him to be so imminently dangerous that it must in all probability cause (a) death, or (b) such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, the accused having no excused for incurring the risk of causing such death or injury. 18.The Supreme Court in the matter of Hari Singh v. Sukhbir Singh and others reported in (1988) 4 SCC 551 has held that under Section 307 of 6 the IPC 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 the provision. The intention or knowledge of the accused must be such as is necessary to constitute murder. Without this ingredient being established, there can be no offence of “attempt to murder”. Under Section 307 the intention precedes the act attributed to accused. Therefore, the intention is to be gathered from all circumstances, and not merely from the consequences that ensue. It has been further held that the nature of the weapon used, manner in which it is used,motive for the crime, severity of the blow, the part of the body where the injury is inflicted are some of the factors that may be taken into consideration to determine the intention. 19.Similarly, in the matter of State of Maharashtra v. Kashirao and others, reported in (2003) 10 SCC 434 their Lordships of the Supreme Court have held that for the application of Section 307 of the IPC, it is not necessary that the injury capable of causing death should have been actually inflicted. The injuries sustained, the manner of assaults and the weapons used clearly make out a case of Section 307 of the IPC. It has been 1 (1988) 4 SCC 5512 ( 2003) 10 SCC 434 observed by their Lordships in para 21 of the report as under: - 20. “21. In offence under Section 307 all the ingredients of the offence of murder are present except the death of the victim. For the application of Section 307, it is not necessary that the injury capable of causing death should have been actually inflicted. The injuries sustained, the manner of assaults and the weapons used clearly make out a case of Section 307 IPC. But since sentence and fine have been maintained, alteration of conviction notwithstanding no modification of sentence need be made. 7 21.The Supreme Court in the matter of Parsuram Pandey and others v. State of Bihar reported in (2004) 13 SCC 189 has also held that to constitute an offence under Section 307 of the IPC, two ingredients of the offence must be present: (a) an intention of or knowledge relating to commission of murder; and (b) the doing of an act towards it. It has been held in paragraph 15 of the report as under:- “15. To constitute an offence under Section 307 two ingredients of the offence must be present: (a) an intention of or knowledge relating to commissio of murder; and (b) the doing of an act towards it. For the purpose of Section 307 what is material is the intention or the knowledge and not the consequence of the actual act done for the purpose of carrying out the intention. The section clearly contemplates an act which is done with intention of causing death but which fails to bring about the intended consequence on account of intervening circumstances. The intention or knowledge of the accused must be such as is necessary to constitute murder. In the absence of intention or knowledge which is the necessary ingredient of Section 307, there can be no offence “of attempt to murder”. Intent which is a state of mind cannot be proved by precise direct evidence, as a fact it can only be detected or inferred from other factors. " 22. Similarly, the Supreme Court in the matter of Jage Ram and others v. State of Haryana reported in (2015) 11 SCC 366 has laid down the ingredients of the offence under Section 307 of the IPC and held as under:- “12. For the purpose of conviction under Section 307 IPC, prosecution has to establish (i) the intention to commit murder; and (ii) the act done by the accused. The burden is on the prosecution that the accused had attempted to commit the murder of the prosecution witness. Whether the accused person intended to commit murder of another person would depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. To justify a conviction under Section 307 IPC, it 8 is not essential that fatal injury capable of causing death should have been caused. Although the nature of injury actually caused may be of assistance in coming to a finding as to the intention of the accused, such intention may also be adduced from other circumstances. The intention of the accused is to be gathered from the circumstances like the nature of the weapon used, words used by the accused at the time of the incident, motive of the accused, parts of the body where the injury was caused and the nature of injury and severity of the blows given, etc. 14. Having regard to the weapon used for causing the head injuries to Sukhbir, nature of injures, situs of the injury and the severity of the blows, the courts below recorded concurrent findings convicting the second appellant under Section 307 IPC. In our considered view, the conviction of the second appellant Rajbir @ Raju under Section 307 IPC is unassailable.” 23.Thus taking a cumulative note of the medical evidence collected by the prosecution; looking to the nature of the weapon used, manner in which it is used, motive for the crime, severity of the blow, the part of the body where the injury has been inflicted, keeping in mind the report of the medical report and taking into consideration the aforesaid judicial pronouncements of the Apex Court, this Court has no hesitation to hold that the findings recorded by the trial Court convicting the accused/appellant under Section 307 IPC are based on due appreciation of the evidence on record and deserve to be and are hereby maintained. 24.As regards sentence, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, particularly, the fact that there is no previous enmity between the appellant and the victim, the sentence of 10 years imposed by the trial Court appears to excessively on the higher side and therefore, this Court is of the opinion that in the interest of justice, the sentence imposed on him is reduced to rigorous imprisonment for 5 years. However, fine imposed by 9 trial Court is maintained. 25.The appellant is in jail and he shall serve out the sentence as modified above. 26.With the aforesaid observations, the criminal appeal is partly allowed. 27. Let a copy of this order and the original records be transmitted to the trial court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge Jyoti