1 CRA No. 1145 of 2023 2025:CGHC:18200 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 1145 of 2023 [Arising out of judgment dated 24.05.2023 passed in Sessions Trial No.115/2019 by the 3 rd Additional Sessions Judge Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh.]  Yogendra Kumar Dheewar S/o Late Shri Thanu Ram Dheewar, aged about 18 years, R/o Bazar Chowk, Mowa, Police Station – Pandri, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ... Appellant versus  State of Chhattisgarh through the Station House Officer, Police Station – Pandri, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent For Appellant :- Mr. Balraj Gupta, Advocate. For State-Respondent :- Mr. Ashutosh Shukla, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Judgment On Board 22/04/2025 1. Assail in the present criminal appeal filed under Section 374(2) of the CrPC preferred by the sole appellant-accused, is to the legality, validity and correctness of the judgment dated ANKIT KUMAR SINGH Digitally signed by ANKIT KUMAR SINGH Date: 2025.04.25 11:20:55 +0530 2 CRA No. 1145 of 2023 24.05.2023 passed by the 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh, in Sessions Trial No. 115/2019 by which the appellant herein has been convicted for offence under Section 307 read with Section 34 of the IPC and sentenced thereunder to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 7 years with fine of 2,000/-; in default of payment of ₹ fine amount the appellant has to undergo additional rigorous imprisonment for six months and also convicted for offence under Section 324 read with Section 34 of the IPC and sentenced thereunder to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 2 years with fine of ₹ 500/-; in default of payment of fine amount the appellant has to undergo additional rigorous imprisonment for two months. Both the sentence are directed to run concurrently. Prosecution Case:- 2. The case of the prosecution as projected by the prosecution and accepted by the trial Court is that on 24.01.2019 at about 10:15 pm, in front of the house of Monu Sahu, at Mowa main road, the appellant along with two juveniles namely S. Kumar Dhruv and Pramod Mahanand, in furtherance of their 3 CRA No. 1145 of 2023 common intention, assaulted Purushottam @ Sanjay Sahu (PW-1) with knife by which he suffered which were sufficient in ordinary course of nature to cause death. Also appellant herein along with the two juveniles assaulted Siddharth Lahare (PW-2) with knife by which suffered simple injuries. They (PW-1 & PW-2) were escorted to the hospital. The said incident was reported by injured witness PW-2 Siddharth Lahare, pursuant to which dehati nalsi was registered vide Ex.P/1. FIR was registered vide Ex.P/11. Crime details form was prepared vide Ex.P/2. Wheels of investigation started running and the apellant was arrested. Pursuant to memorandum statement of the appellant (Ex.P/4), weapon of offence i.e. knife was seized vide Ex.P/5. Other articles were also seized. Seized articles were sent for chemical analysis to FSL and as per FSL report (Ex.P/14) on the weapon of offence i.e. knifes (article F, seized pursuant to memorandum statement of appellant & article E, seized at the instance of co- accused Pramod Mahanand) blood was found and on the clothes (articles C & D) of injured witness PW-1 Purushottam @ Sanjay Sahu, human blood was found. As per the medical report (Ex.P/9) of Purushottam @ Sanjay Sahu (PW-1), he had 4 CRA No. 1145 of 2023 suffered 8 injuires and the injuires were in danger in nature. As per the medical report (Ex.P/10) of Siddharth Lahre (PW- 2), injuries were simple in nature. 3. After due investigation, appellant was charge-sheeted for the aforesaid offence and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions for trial in accordance with law. The appellant / accused abjured his guilt and entered into defence. 4. During the course of trial, in order to bring home the offence, the prosecution has examined as many as 10 witnesses and exhibited 17 documents, whereas, the appellant in defence has neither examined any witness nor exhibited any document. Statement of the appellant was recorded under Section 313 of CrPC in which he denied the circumstances appearing against him in the evidence brought on record, pleaded innocence and false implication. 5. The learned trial Court after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence available on record, convicted the appellant for the offence as mentioned in the opening paragraph of the judgment, against which this appeal has 5 CRA No. 1145 of 2023 been preferred by the appellant herein questioning the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence. 6. Mr. Balraj Gupta, learned counsel for the appellant, would submit that the trial Court is absolutely unjustified in convicting the appellant for the offence in question and at the most the appellant may be convicted for offence under Section 323 of the IPC. In alternative, he would submit that, if the case of the prosecution is taken as it is, as the injuries which were caused over the body of PW-2 were simple in nature and even all the injuries were on the non vital part of the body. Therefore, the appellant is sentenced to the period already undergone by him as he was in jail from 25.01.2019 to 19.08.2020 and since 26.03.2022. Thus, the appeal is allowed in full or part. 7. Mr. Ashutosh Shukla, learned State counsel, would submit that prosecution has been able to bring home the offence beyond reasonable doubt. He would also submit that as per Dr. Devendra Nayak (PW-10) in injuries which were caused over the body of PW-1 were dangerous, therefore, the appeal 6 CRA No. 1145 of 2023 deserves to be dismissed and the appellant is not entitled for acquittal. 8. I have heard learned counsel, considered their rival submissions made herein-above and gone through the records minutely. 9. Now, the question for consideration, would be whether the trial Court is justified in convicting the appellant for offence under Section 307 of the IPC? 10. 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.” 7 CRA No. 1145 of 2023 11. 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 (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. 12. 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 1 (1988) 4 SCC 551 8 CRA No. 1145 of 2023 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. 13. The Supreme Court in the matter of Parsuram Pandey and others v. State of Bihar2 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 2 (2004) 13 SCC 189 9 CRA No. 1145 of 2023 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. ...” 14. Similarly, the Supreme Court in the matter of Jage Ram and others v. State of Haryana3 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 3 (2015) 11 SCC 366 10 CRA No. 1145 of 2023 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.” 15. Coming to the facts of the present case in light of the principles of law laid down by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in the aforesaid judgments for offence under Section 307 of the IPC, it is quite vivid that the present appellant along with two juvenile co-accused assaulted victim Purushottam @ Sanjay Sahu (PW-1) and Siddharth Sahu (PW-2) by knife. Dr. Devendra Nayak (PW-10) medically examined the PW-1, who (PW-10) in his statement before the Court has stated that the total 8 injuries were suffered by PW-1; spleen was also found ruptured and it was removed by operation and two major injuries wre also found in the abdomen and exept that the appellant was on ventilator and admitted in the ICU for 16 days. He (PW-10) has further stated that the injuries which were found over the body of the victim PW-1 were dangerous and if he (PW-1) had not received the treatment right in time, he would have 11 CRA No. 1145 of 2023 died. As such, the trial Court has righlty convicted the appellant for offence under Section 307 of the IPC. Discussion and analysis:- 16. In view of the aforesaid discussion and analysis, I am of the considered opinion that the trial Court has rightly convicted the appellant for offence under Section 307/34 of the IPC. However, considering the age of the appellant i.e. 18 years on the date of offence, the ends of justice would be served, if the appellant is sentenced to undergor 5 years rigorous imprisonment instead of 7 years and the fine amount shall remain intact. 17. So far as the, conviction of the appellant for offence under Section 324/34 of the IPC as well as sentence for the said offence for causing injuries to PW-2 Siddharth Lahare, in light of the medical reports (Exs.P/10 & P/15A), are well merited. As such, the conviction as well as sentence of the appellant for offence under Section 324/34 of the IPC are hereby affirm. 18. This criminal appeal is partly allowed to the extent indicated herein-above. 12 CRA No. 1145 of 2023 19. Let a certified copy of this judgment along with the original record be transmitted to the trial Court concerned and also the copy of this judgment be supplied to the concerned Superintendent of Jail where he is lodged and suffering jail sentence, forthwith for information and necessary action, if any. Sd/- Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge Ankit