1 2025:CGHC:18440 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 1185 of 2023 {Arising out of judgment dated 18.05.2023 passed in Sessions Trial No.24/2022 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Baikunthpur, District Koriya} Jaglal Pando, S/o. Late Pardeshi Pando, Aged About 35 Years, R/o. Village Singhor, Pandopara Chowki Ramgarh Sonhat, Police Station Sonhat, District : Koriya (Baikunthpur), Chhattisgarh ... Appellant versus State Of Chhattisgarh, Through Police Station Sonhat, District : Koriya (Baikunthpur), Chhattisgarh ... Respondent (Cause Title taken from Case Information System) For Appellant : Mr. Ajay Kumar Chandra, Advocate For Respondent : Mr. Ashutosh Shukla, Panel Lawyer (Single Bench) Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Judgment on Board (23.04.2025) ASHOK SAHU Digitally signed by ASHOK SAHU Date: 2025.04.25 10:13:45 +0530 2 Sanjay K. Agrawal, J. 1. This criminal appeal preferred by the appellant under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C. is directed against the impugned judgment dated 18.05.2023, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Baikunthpur, District Koriya in Sessions Trial No.24/2022, by which the appellant herein has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 307 of I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo 7 years rigorous imprisonment and fine amount of Rs.100/-, in default of payment of fine, 15 days additional rigorous imprisonment. 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 31.12.2021, at morning 6:00 A.M., at village Singhor, Pandopara, Police Station- Sonhat, District Koriya, the appellant herein assaulted Surajlal (PW-3) by blow & arrow, by which he suffered grievous injury, which was sufficient in ordinary course of nature to cause death and thereby, the offence has been committed. Ramkumar (PW-2) reported the matter to the police, pursuant to which, FIR was registered vide Ex.P-2 and MLC of the victim was conducted vide Ex.P-13 by Dr. Shresth Mishra (PW-8) and excessive bleeding was noticed on the injury received by the victim. Victim (PW-3) was admitted in 3 the hospital for about 22 days. The weapon of offence i.e. blow was recovered from the appellant vide Ex.P-6, which was sent for chemical examination to FSL along-with other seized articles and as per the FSL report (Ex.P-22), blood was found on the arrow. After due investigation, the appellant was charge-sheeted for the aforesaid offence and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions for trial in accordance with law in which the appellant abjured his guilt and entered into defence stating that he has not committed any offence and he has been falsely implicated. 3. During the course of trial, in order to bring home the offence, prosecution has examined as many as 10 witnesses and exhibited 22 documents and the appellant-accused in support of his defence has neither examined any witness nor exhibited any document. 4. The learned trial Court, after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence on record, convicted the appellant for the aforesaid offence as mentioned in the opening paragraph of this judgment, against which the present appeal has been preferred. 4 5. Mr. Ajay Kumar Chandra, learned counsel for the appellant, would submit that no offence under Section 307 of I.P.C. is made out and the appellant is liable to be acquitted. In alternative, he would further submit that, if the case of the prosecution is taken as it is, the appellant be sentenced to the period already undergone for the offence under Sections 307 of I.P.C. as he is in custody since 04.01.2022 i.e. for more than 3 years. 6. Mr. Ashutosh Shukla, learned State counsel, would support the impugned judgment and submit that the prosecution has been able to bring home the offence beyond reasonable doubt and the learned trial Court has rightly convicted the appellant for the aforesaid offence. He would further submit that the manner in which the offence has been committed, the appellant is not entitled for any leniency and further, it is not a fit case where the appellant be sentenced for the period already undergone and, as such, the appeal deserves to be dismissed. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein-above and went through the records with utmost circumspection. 5 8. 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 ? 9. 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.” 10. 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 6 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. 11. 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. 12. Similarly, in the matter of State of Maharashtra v. Kashirao and others2, their Lordships of the Supreme Court have held 1 (1988) 4 SCC 551 2 (2003) 10 SCC 434 7 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 observed by their Lordships in para 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. ...” 13. 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: 3 (2004) 13 SCC 189 8 (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 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 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 4 (2015) 11 SCC 366 9 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.” 15. Coming to the facts of the case in the light of the aforesaid principles of law laid down by their Lordships of the Supreme Court for offence under Section 307 of the I.P.C., it is quite vivid that victim/injured witness (PW-3) has clearly supported the case of the prosecution and he stated that on the date of offence, when he was making way for daily use on the government land, the appellant, all of a sudden, came and caused the arrow injury, by which he suffered grievous injury and he was taken to Ambikapur Hospital from where he was referred to Raipur Hospital where he was treated for 21-22 days. The statement of victim (PW-3) has also been supported by wife of the victim Golri Bai (PW-4) who was eye-witness and present on the spot. The victim was medically examined by Dr. Shrestha Mishra (PW-8) who proved the MLC report 10 vide Ex.P-13 and he stated that since there was excessive bleeding on the injury, the victim was referred to District Hospital Baikunthpur. Dr. Rajendra Ratre (PW-7) has stated that when the victim was brought to the Raipur hospital, he was semiconscious and the injury suffered by him was serious in nature and likely to cause death for which he was operated and he remained in the Raipur hospital for 20 days. In that view of the matter and the manner in which the appellant has caused the arrow injury to the victim (PW-3), I am of the considered opinion that the trial Court is absolutely justified in convicting the appellant for the offence under Section 307 of I.P.C. However, considering the facts and circumstances of the case and further considering the age of the appellant i.e. 35 years, on the date of offence, the ends of justice would be served, if the appellant is sentenced to undergo 4 years rigorous imprisonment instead of 7 years rigorous imprisonment, as he was in jail since 04.01.2022. The fine amount shall remain as it is. 16. Accordingly, this criminal appeal is partly allowed to the extent indicated herein-above. 11 17. Let a certified copy of this judgment along with the original record be transmitted forthwith to the concerned trial Court for necessary information & action, if any. A copy of the judgment may also be sent to the concerned Jail Superintendent forthwith wherein the appellant is suffering the jail sentence. Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge Ashok