1 (CRA No. 2047 of 2022) 2025:CGHC:16706 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 2047 of 2022 {Arising out of judgment dated 08.12.2022 passed in Sessions Trial No.92/2021 by the learned Second Additional Sessions Judge, Baloda-bazar, District – Baloda-bazar- Bhatapara, C.G.} 1 - Ramprasad Sahu S/o Chintaram Sahu Aged About 24 Years Resident Of Village Bharsela, Police Station Balodabazar, District Balodabazar Bhatapara Chhattisgarh --- Appellant(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Gidhpuri, District Balodabazar Bhatapara Chhattisgarh --- Respondent(s) (Cause-title taken from the Case Information System) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Appellant :- Mr. Satya Prakash Verma and Ms. Ritika Verma, Advocates For State :- Mr. Pankaj Singh, Panel Lawyer ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SB - Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Judgment on Board 03.04 .2025 1. This criminal appeal has been preferred by the appellant- accused under Section 374(2) of the CrPC which is directed against the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 08.12.2022 (Annexure A/1) passed by 2 (CRA No. 2047 of 2022) learned Second Additional Sessions Judge, Balodabazar, District Balodabazar-Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh in Sessions Trial No.92/2021 by which the sole appellant herein has been convicted for the offence under Section 307 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 07 years with fine of 1,000/- , in default of payment of fine, ₹ sentenced to undergo additional imprisonment for 03 months. 2. The case of the prosecution, in short, is that on 12.08.2021, at about 11:30 am, near Bada Talab in village Bhawanipur, Police Station Gidhpuri, District Balodabazar- Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh, the appellant assaulted his wife – Gitanjali Sahu (PW-03) with knife on her stomach and left forearm and, thereafter, ran away from the spot, due to which his wife suffered grievous injuries, which are sufficient in ordinary course of nature to cause death and, thereby, committed the aforesaid offence. 3. Further case of prosecution is that Gomti Sahu (PW-10), mother of the victim (PW-10), reported the matter to the police, pursuant to which Crime Form was prepared vide Ex.P/7. Nazari naksha was prepared vide Ex.P/10. Dehati Nalsi was prepared vide Ex.P/11 and FIR was registered 3 (CRA No. 2047 of 2022) vide Ex.P/13. The victim was medically examined by Dr. Pankaj Verma (P.W.-13) and MLC report was prepared vide Ex.P/14. As per MLC report (Ex.P/14), incised wounds were found on the forearm of right hand, right lumbar region and right iliac region and lacerated wound was found above umbilicus of the victim and she remained hospitalized for ten days and also suffered surgical intervention. Thereafter, statements of witnesses were recorded. After due investigation, the appellant was charge- sheeted for the aforesaid offence in the competent criminal Court having jurisdiction, which was thereafter committed to the Court of Sessions for hearing and trial in accordance with law, in which, the appellant abjured his guilt and entered into defence. 4. In order to bring home the offence, the prosecution has examined as many as 14 witnesses and exhibited 22 documents, whereas the defence in support of its case 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. 4 (CRA No. 2047 of 2022) 5. The learned trial Court after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence available on record, convicted the appellant/accused for the offence as mentioned in the opening paragraph of the judgment, against which this appeal has been preferred by the appellant herein questioning the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence. 6. Mr. Satya Prakash Verma, learned counsel for the appellant, would submit that the learned trial Court is absolutely unjustified in convicting the appellant for the aforesaid offence, as the prosecution has failed to prove the same beyond reasonable doubt. He would also submit that the prosecution witnesses are not reliable and some of them have turned hostile. He would further submit that the injuries are simple in nature and all are on the non- vital part of the body and the victim remained hospitalized for only 10 days. Therefore, this appeal may be allowed and the appellant be sentenced to the period already undergone, as he is in jail since 15.08.2021 i.e. more than 03 years 07 months and 19 days. 7. Per-contra, Mr. Sharad Mishra, learned State counsel supports the impugned judgment of conviction and order 5 (CRA No. 2047 of 2022) of sentence and submits that the prosecution has proved the offence beyond reasonable doubt by leading evidence of clinching nature and it is not a case where the sentence of the appellant can be reduced to the sentence already undergone by him. As such, the present appeal deserves to be dismissed. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein-above and gone through the documents available on record with utmost circumspection. 9. Now, the question is, whether the trial court is justified in convicting the appellant for offence under Section 307 of the IPC? 10. At this state, it would be appropriate to notice Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code 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 6 (CRA No. 2047 of 2022) 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." 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 1 (1988) 4 SCC 551 7 (CRA No. 2047 of 2022) 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. 13. Similarly, in the matter of State of Maharashtra v. Kashirao and others2, 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 observed by their Lordships in para 21 of the report as under: - 2 (2003) 10 SCC 434 8 (CRA No. 2047 of 2022) “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. ...” 14.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 3 (2004) 13 SCC 189 9 (CRA No. 2047 of 2022) 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. ...” 15.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 4 (2015) 11 SCC 366 10 (CRA No. 2047 of 2022) 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.” 16. Coming to the facts of the present case, in light of principles law laid down by their Lordships of Supreme Court in above cited judgments for the offence under Section 307 of the IPC, it is quite vivid that the victim (PW- 03), wife of the present appellant, has clearly supported the case of prosecution by stating that while she was taking bath, the appellant came in anger and assaulted her with knife on her stomach and hand by which she suffered grievous injuries. Considering the fact that the mother of the victim (PW-10) and neighbour (PW-02) have also supported the case of prosecution, though they have been 11 (CRA No. 2047 of 2022) subjected to some extent of cross-examination but nothing has been extracted to hold that they have falsely implicated the appellant in crime in question. Further considering the fact that pursuant to the memorandum statement of the appellant, knife was seized (Ex.P/5) on which blood was found as per FSL report vide Ex.P/20. Moreover, considering the nature of injuries which were occurred over the body of the victim, were simple in nature and all were on the non-vital part of the body of the victim vide Ex.P/14 proved by Dr. Pankaj Verma (PW-13) and also considering the statement of Dr. Santosh Sonkar (PW-14) who has performed the surgery of victim, the trial Court has rightly convicted the appellant for offence under Section 307 of the IPC. 17. However, considering the fact that the victim was discharged from the hospital within 10 days and further considering the relationship between the present appellant and victim (husband and wife), I am of the considered opinion that the ends of justice would be served, if the appellant is sentenced to the period already undergone by him for the offence under Section 307 of IPC as he is in 12 (CRA No. 2047 of 2022) custody since 15.08.2021 i.e. for more than 03 years 07 months and 19 days. 18. With the aforesaid modification, the appeal is partly allowed to the extent indicated herein above. 19. Let a certified copy of this judgment along with the original record be transmitted to the trial Court concerned and to the Superintendent of Jail where he is lodged and suffering jail sentence, forthwith for necessary information and action, if any. Sd/- Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge @d!t!/Saxena ABHIGYA SAXENA Digitally signed by ABHIGYA SAXENA