1 2025:CGHC:57847 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 1881 of 2024  Sheikh Kurban @ Gulam Mustafa S/o Sheikh Asiruddin Aged About 28 Years R/o Village Bhelo, P/s Khanakul, District Hugli, West Bengal. ... Petitioner(s) versus  State Of Chhattisgarh Through Sho P/s Tikrapara, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. --- Respondent ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ For Appellant : Mr. Vinay Nagdev, Advocate. For State/Respondent : Ms. Laxmeen Kashyap, P.L. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hon'ble Shri Arvind Kumar Verma, Judge Order on Board 27.11.2025 1. With the consent of counsel for the parties, the matter is heard 3nally at motion stage. 2. This criminal appeal has been 3led under Section 415(2) of the BNSS by the appellant against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 12.09.2024 passed by the learned 2nd Additional Ses- sions Judge, Raipur (C.G.), in Session Trial No. 305/2022, whereby the appellant has been convicted and sentenced as follows:- Convicted under Sections Sentenced to Digitally signed by JYOTI JHA Date: 2025.12.12 11:24:16 +0530 2 307 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 R.I. for 7 years with 3ne of INR Rs. 1000/- and in default of payment of 3ne, additional R.I. for 3 months 25(1-b)(b) and 27 of Arms Act R.I. for 3-3 months with 3ne of Rs. 500-500 and in default of payment of 3ne, additional R.I. for 1-1 month in both the section. 3. BrieBy stated facts of the case leading to the disposal of this appeal are that the Applicant Ejaz Khan lodged a report at Police Station Tikrapara, Raipur on 03/08/2022, stating that on the night of 03/08/2022, he was present at his oEce at Baijnath Para. At about 8:40 p.m., his cousin sister Insha Ashraf informed him over telephone that his younger cousin brother, Adil Ashraf, had reached home in a severely injured condition, having sustained injuries on his neck and was bleeding profusely. Upon receiving the information, he came home and learnt that Adil Ashraf had already been taken to a local practitioner. He then reached the hospital and saw that his cousin brother, Adil Ashraf, was in a critical condition and was bleeding heavily from his neck. His uncle, Ashraf Ali, and neighbour Kochi Bhai were also present there. The doctor advised that the injured be immediately shifted to a bigger hospital. Thereafter, he admitted his cousin brother, Adil Ashraf, in M.M.I. Hospital. On inquiry, the injured disclosed that he had gone to Jhanda Chowk to meet his friend and was returning alone on his bicycle. At about 8:30 p.m., near Sanjay Nagar at Jhanda Chowk, one boy named Sheikh Kurban met him and asked him about the whereabouts of Ayan. Thereafter, Sheikh Kurban pushed him along with the bicycle causing him to fall down, and dragged him. When he raised alarm, the assailant threatened to kill him and took out a sharp-edged weapon from his pocket and inBicted a blow on the front side of his neck. He then 3 pushed the assailant away and, while shouting “Save me”, reached home and informed his mother, Zeenat Parveen, and sisters, Insha and Adiba Ashraf, about the incident. His cousin brother sustained a grievous injury on his neck. It is alleged that with the intention to kill the victim, accused Sheikh Kurban caused serious injury on his neck by means of a sharp-edged weapon. Upon making inquiries about Sheikh Qurban, he came to know that the accused is a resident of Bhelgaon, District Hooghly, West Bengal, and had recently been staying at the house of their neighbour, Sheikh Mehboob. On the basis of the report of the applicant, Police Station Tikrapara, on the same date of the incident, registered Crime No. 450/2020 for the oLence under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code against accused Sheikh Qurban and commenced investigation into the matter. 4. So as to prove the complicity of the accused/appellant in the crime in question, prosecution has examined as many as 15 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 Additional Sessions Judge Raipur 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 doubts. He further submits that as there was no intention on 4 the part of the accused/appellant to cause injury to the victim, the oLence 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 02.11.2022 to 12.09.2024 and from the date of judgment dated 12.09.2024 (almost three years and 25 days), 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 and other witnesses which gets corroboration from the testimony of other independent witnesses, the 3ndings recorded by the Additional Sessions Judge, Raipur holding the accused/appellant guilty under Section 307 IPC and Section 25(1-b)(b) and 27 of Arms Act being based on proper appreciation of the evidence on record are fully justi3ed 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. The question is, whether the trial Court is justi3ed in convicting the appellant for oLence 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 5 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 ne; and if hurt is caused to any person by such act, the oender shall be liable either to imprisonment for life, or to such punishment as is hereinbefore mentioned. Attempts by life-convicts.—When any person oending 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 oLence 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 su&cient 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 others reported in (1988) 4 SCC 551 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 oLence 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 6 is used,motive for the crime, severity of the blow, the part of the body where the injury is inBicted 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 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 inBicted. 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: - “21. In oence under Section 307 all the ingredients of the oence 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 in/icted. The injuries sustained, the manner of assaults and the weapons used clearly make out a case of Section 307 IPC. But since sentence and ne have been maintained, alteration of conviction notwithstanding no modication of sentence need be made. 14. 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 oLence under Section 307 of the IPC, two ingredients of the oLence 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 oence under Section 307 two ingredients of the oence 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. 7 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 oence “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 Haryana reported in (2015) 11 SCC 366 has laid down the ingredients of the oLence 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 nding 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 ndings 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. Injured/victim (PW-1) being an 8 year old minor, in his statement before the Court, deposed regarding the incident that he had left his house at Sanjay Nagar on foot and went to the house of his friend Ayan, which is situated two houses ahead of his own house. There, he asked Ayan’s uncle regarding the whereabouts of Ayan, whereupon his uncle, 8 Penu, informed him that Ayan was near the lane at Jhanda Chowk and told him to go there. Thereafter, he returned home, took his bicycle and went to Jhanda Chowk, which is approximately one kilometre away. The witness further stated that upon reaching there, he saw Ayan’s uncle, Sheikh Kurban, and asked him where Ayan was. Sheikh Kurban responded that Ayan had gone to collect some items and would return shortly, and told him to wait there. Accordingly, he waited. Thereafter, Sheikh Kurban looked around and took out a knife from his possession and inBicted a knife blow on his neck and attempted to put him inside a sack. At that stage, he caught hold of the knife and threw it away. Meanwhile, a person was seen approaching from the house situated in the front, and on seeing that person, Sheikh Kurban got frightened and Bed from the spot. Child witness Adil Ashraf (P.W.–01), in his further court testimony, also stated that thereafter he went back to his house and looked at himself in the mirror, where he saw that blood was Bowing from his neck and his entire clothes were soaked in blood, and he was feeling dizzy. When he informed his mother, Zeenat Parveen, she initially thought that he was joking. After realizing that the blood on his clothes was real, she took him outside and asked the neighbours to take him to a doctor. He had sustained injuries on his neck and near the left side of his abdomen. He was taken to a nearby doctor, and thereafter to Memon Hospital, where he was advised to be taken to a bigger hospital. Subsequently, his father and cousin brother took him to M.M.I. Hospital, where he was treated, and he remained admitted for four days. The police had visited the hospital and recorded his statement, during which he disclosed the names of both the accused persons. 17. Ejaz Khan (PW-3) had deposed that he has lodged the report of the 9 incident and he supports the statement of the injured and he has deposed the similar statement. 18. Dr. Ajay Kumar Mishra (PW-09) who medically examined the victim/injured, found that on 03/08/2022 at about 10:12 p.m., the injured, Adil Ashraf, was brought to the hospital by his father, Ashraf Ali, for treatment. On examining the injured, he found an injury on the neck caused by a pointed object, measuring 2 x 2 x 3 cm. The said injury was a cut wound inBicted by a sharp and pointed weapon. Apart from the said injury, he also found an abrasion injury near the right side of the waist, measuring 3 x 4 cm. The injury on the neck was opined to be grievous in nature, whereas the injury on the waist was found to be simple. The initial medical treatment of the injured was reBected in the M.L.C. report (Ex.P-12) 19. In the present case, the testimony of the injured child witness (PW- 1), being a natural and stamped witness of the occurrence, inspires full con3dence and remains unshaken in material particulars. His version of the incident is consistent, cogent, and 3nds substantial corroboration from the medical evidence furnished by PW-09, who has clearly opined that the injury on the vital part of the body, i.e., neck, was a grievous cut wound caused by a sharp-edged weapon. The presence of motive, the manner in which the assault was executed, the threat extended to kill, and the situs and depth of injury collectively establish the requisite intention and knowledge envisaged under Section 307 IPC. The defence has failed to point out any material contradiction or circumstance which may render the prosecution version doubtful. The case of the prosecution stands fully supported by the medical record, i.e., Ex. P-12. 10 20. 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 inBicted, 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 3ndings 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. No perversity, illegality, or in3rmity is demonstrated so as to warrant interference in appellate jurisdiction. Accordingly, the appeal being devoid of any merit is hereby dismissed and the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Raipur is aErmed. 21. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. 22. The Trial Court record (TCR) along with a copy of this judgment be sent back immediately to the trial court concerned for compliance and necessary action. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge Jyoti