(Cr.A.No.886/2023) 2025:CGHC:19771 AFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 886 of 2023 (Arising out of judgment dated 27-2-2023 passed by the 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Ambikapur, District Sarguja in Sessions Trial No.166/2022) Devpratap, S/o Balbhadra Pawle, Aged about 35 years, R/o Keshgawa (Saraipara), Thana Udaypur, District Sarguja (C.G.) (In Jail) ... Appellant versus State of Chhattisgarh, Through SHO, Arakshi Kendra-Udaypur, Distt. Sarguja (C.G.) ... Respondent For Appellant : Mr. Brijesh Kumar Singh, Advocate/Panel Lawyer appointed by the Chhattisgarh High Court Legal Services Committee. For Respondent/State : Dr. Surendra Kumar Dewangan, Panel Lawyer. Hon’ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Judgment on Board 30/04/2025 1. This criminal appeal preferred under Section 374(2) of the CrPC is directed against judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 27-2- 2023 passed by the 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Ambikapur, District Sarguja in Sessions Trial No.166/2022, by which the appellant has been convicted under Section 307 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years & to pay a fine of 500/-, in default of ₹ SISTA SOMAYAJULU Digitally signed by SISTA SOMAYAJULU Date: 2025.05.02 14:24:58 +0530 (Cr.A.No.886/2023) payment of fine to further undergo additional rigorous imprisonment for two months. 2. Case of the prosecution, in short, is that on 14-8-2022 at about 5 p.m., at Village Keshgawa under the jurisdiction of Police Station Udaypur, District Surguja, the appellant assaulted his wife Manmati Gond by iron sickle on her eye and ousted the right eyeball from the orbit of eye and thereby committed the offence. Kulan Sai (PW-2) – father of the victim, has lodged written report vide Ex.P-3 at Police Station Udaypur pursuant to which FIR was registered vide Ex.P-4 against the accused/appellant for offences punishable under Sections 307 & 326 of the IPC. The accused was arrested vide Ex.P-7 and his memorandum statement was recorded vide Ex.P-5 pursuant to which iron sickle was recovered at his instance vide Ex.P-6. The victim was medically examined vide Ex.P-9 by Dr. Yogendra Paikra (PW-6) who referred her to Government Medical College, Ambikapur where she remained hospitalised for nine days. According to the medical report of Dr. Priyanka Gupta (PW-7) i.e. Ex.P- 12, the victim has sustained grievous injury on right eye and right eyeball was absent. Statements of the witnesses were recorded under Section 161 of the CrPC and the matter was investigated. Thereafter, after usual investigation, the appellant was charge-sheeted before the jurisdictional criminal court. 3. The prosecution, in order to prove the offence against the appellant, examined as many as 10 witnesses and brought on record 14 (Cr.A.No.886/2023) documents Exs.P-1 to P-14. The defence has neither examined any witness nor exhibited any document in support of its case. 4. The trial Court after appreciating oral and documentary evidence on record, proceeded to convict the appellant herein as mentioned in the opening paragraph of this judgment against which the present appeal has been preferred. 5. Mr. Brijesh Kumar Singh, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, would submit that the prosecution has not been able to bring home the offence against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt and even otherwise, the sentence awarded is on higher side and as such, the appeal be allowed in full or in part. 6. Dr. Surendra Kumar Dewangan, learned State counsel, would oppose the appeal and support the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence and submit that the manner in which the appellant has assaulted his wife by iron sickle and right eyeball was ousted forcefully from the orbit of eye, it is not the case where any kind of leniency should be shown towards the appellant and the appeal deserves to be dismissed. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered their rival submissions made herein-above and also went through the record with utmost circumspection. 8. Injured witness Smt. Manamati @ Manmati Gond (PW-1) is the wife of the appellant herein. She has clearly stated in her statement before the court that on the date of incident, she was at home, all of a sudden, the (Cr.A.No.886/2023) appellant armed with iron sickle used for harvesting crops, came towards her and forcefully ousted the right eyeball from the orbit of eye by which she became unconscious and her eyeball was thrown into the stove, thereafter, the appellant was taking her to put her body in the gunny bag so as to throw in the river, but somehow she was rescued by her children Vikas & Bindeshwari. She was medically examined firstly by Dr. Yogendra Paikra (PW-6) vide MLC report Ex.P-9 according to which swelling was found around right eye and opening of eye was not possible due to extreme pain. Thereafter, she was referred to Government Medical College, Ambikapur for ophthalmic consultation and further needful management where she was examined by Dr. Priyanka Gupta (PW-7) and she was advised for Sonography, CT Scan and X-ray. According to the MLC report of Dr. Priyanka Gupta (PW-7), on 24-8-2022, victim Smt. Manamati @ Manmati Gond (PW-1), who is wife of the appellant herein, was further examined once again and her right eyeball was found completely absent and on conducting Sonography and CT Scan also, right eyeball was completely found missing. Bed head ticket of the victim was exhibited as Ex.P-11. Dr. Priyanka Gupta (PW-7) has stated in her statement before the court that in sonography test and CT scan report of the victim, right eyeball was completely absent and only air bubbles were present over there. 9. The victim (PW-1) has been cross-examined on behalf of the appellant, but nothing has been extracted from her evidence that it is not the appellant who has caused the above injury to her and therefore there is no (Cr.A.No.886/2023) reason for not accepting the statement of the victim (PW-1) supported by the medical evidence of Dr. Yogendra Paikra (PW-6) & Dr. Priyanka Gupta (PW-7). Thus, it has been found that right eyeball of the victim is completely missing and it is the appellant who has caused injury to the victim and forcefully extracted the right eyeball from the orbit of eye and moreover, the connecting ocular nerves were also absent and found cut. 10.However, it is the argument of Mr. Brijesh Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the appellant, that Section 307 of the IPC is not made out and at the most, offence under Section 325 of the IPC would be made out against the appellant. 11.At this stage, it would be appropriate to notice Section 307 of the IPC, which states as under: - “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.” 12. The essential ingredients required to be proved in the case of an offence under Section 307 of the IPC are:- (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 (Cr.A.No.886/2023) (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 sufficient 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. 13. The Supreme Court in the matter of Hari Singh v. Sukhbir Singh and others1 has held that under Section 307 of 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. 14. Similarly, in the matter of State of Maharashtra v. Kashirao and others2, their Lordships of the Supreme Court have held that for the 1 (1988) 4 SCC 551 2 (2003) 10 SCC 434 (Cr.A.No.886/2023) 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 observed by their Lordships in paragraph 21 of the report as under: - “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. ...” 15. The Supreme Court in the matter of Parsuram Pandey and others v. State of Bihar3 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 commission 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 3 (2004) 13 SCC 189 (Cr.A.No.886/2023) 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. ...” 16. Similarly, the Supreme Court in the matter of Jage Ram and others v. State of Haryana4 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 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.” 17. In the matter of Hari Mohan Mandal v. State of Jharkhand5 it has been held by their Lordships of the Supreme Court that it is sufficient to justify a conviction under Section 307 of the IPC if there is present an intent coupled with some overt act in execution thereof. It has further been held that it is not essential that bodily injury capable of causing death should 4 (2015) 11 SCC 366 5 AIR 2004 SC 3687 (Cr.A.No.886/2023) have been inflicted. It has also been held that if the injury inflicted has been with the avowed object or intention to cause death, the ritual nature, extent or character of the injury or whether such injury is sufficient to actually causing death are really factors which are wholly irrelevant for adjudging the culpability under Section 307 of the IPC. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court observed in paragraph 11 as under: - “11. It is sufficient to justify a conviction under Section 307 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. If the injury inflicted has been with the avowed object or intention to cause death, the ritual nature, extent or character of the injury or whether such injury is sufficient to actually causing death are really factors which are wholly irrelevant for adjudging the culpability under Section 307 IPC. The section makes a distinction between the act of the accused and its result, if any. The court has to see whether the act, irrespective of its result, 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.” 18. Similarly, in the matter of Sivamani and another v. State Represented by Inspector of Police6, relying upon the earlier decisions in Jage Ram (supra), State of Madhya Pradesh v. Kanha7 and State of Madhya Pradesh v. Saleem8, it has been held that to sustain a conviction under Section 307 of the IPC, it was not necessary that a bodily injury capable of resulting in death should have been inflicted and the court has to see whether the act, irrespective of its result, was done with the intention or 6 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1581 7 (2019) 3 SCC 605 8 (2005) 5 SCC 554 (Cr.A.No.886/2023) knowledge and under circumstances mentioned in the section. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court observed in paragraph 9 as under: - “9. In State of Madhya Pradesh v. Saleem, (2005) 5 SCC 554, the Court held that to sustain a conviction under Section 307, IPC, it was not necessary that a bodily injury capable of resulting in death should have been inflicted. As such, non-conviction under Section 307, IPC on the premise only that simple injury was inflicted does not follow as a matter of course. In the same judgment, it was pointed out that ‘…The court has to see whether the act, irrespective of its result, was done with the intention or knowledge and under circumstances mentioned in the section.’ The position that because a fatal injury was not sustained alone does not dislodge Section 307, IPC conviction has been reiterated in Jage Ram v. State of Haryana, (2015) 11 SCC 366 and State of Madhya Pradesh v. Kanha, (2019) 3 SCC 605. Yet, in Jage Ram (supra) and Kanha (supra), it was observed that while grievous or life- threatening injury was not necessary to maintain a conviction under Section 307, IPC, ‘The intention of the accused can be ascertained from the actual injury, if any, as well as from surrounding circumstances. Among other things, the nature of the weapon used and the severity of the blows inflicted can be considered to infer intent.’9” 19. Turning to the facts of the case, it is quite vivid that on the fateful day, the appellant, armed with iron sickle, which is a sharp-edged weapon used for harvesting crops, all of a sudden came and attacked the victim (PW-1) namely, Smt. Manamati @ Manmati Gond, who happens to be his wife and ousted the right eyeball from the orbit of her eye as a result of which she became unconscious and thereafter, he has thrown the eyeball into the stove and when he was taking the victim (PW-1) to put her body in the gunny bag so as to throw her into the river, the victim was rescued by Vikas & Bindeshwari, children of the appellant and the victim. The victim remained hospitalised for nine days. 9 Para 13 of Kanha (supra) (Cr.A.No.886/2023) 20. Taking into consideration the manner in which grievous injury was caused to the victim which stands proved by CT Scan & Sonography reports as also the opinion of the doctors namely, Dr. Yogendra Paikra (PW-6) & Dr. Priyanka Gupta (PW-7), it is sufficient to come to a conclusion that the appellant intended to cause death of his wife / victim Smt. Manamati @ Manmati Gond (PW-1), as he not only caused grievous injury on the vital part of the body i.e. eye, but also ousted the right eyeball from the orbit of eye and thrown the eyeball into the stove and also tried to throw her body into the river by putting her body in a gunny bag. Thus, the appellant has clearly intended to cause the death of the victim (PW-1) i.e. his wife by which she became unconscious and remained hospitalised for as many as nine days. 21. In that view of the matter, considering the manner of causing injury, nature of weapon used and severity of injury inflicted, intention of the appellant can be clearly inferred. As such, the trial Court has rightly convicted the appellant under Section 307 of the IPC and sentenced him to undergo RI for seven years with fine and default stipulation thereof. I do not find any merit in the appeal, it deserves to be and is accordingly dismissed. 22. Registry is directed to send a copy of this judgment to the concerned Superintendent of Jail where the appellant is undergoing his jail term, informing him that he is at liberty to assail the present judgment passed by this Court by preferring an appeal under Article 136 of the Constitution of India before the Hon’ble Supreme Court with the (Cr.A.No.886/2023) assistance of the High Court Legal Services Committee or the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee. Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) JUDGE Soma