1 2025:CGHC:57189 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 2051 of 2025 • Uttam Das Panika S/o Pramod Das Panika Aged About 40 Years R/o Village Dhourpur, Dandpara, Police Station Dhourpur, District Sarguja C.G. ... Appellant(s) versus • State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Dhourpur, District Sarguja C.G. ---- Respondent For Appellant : Mr. A.D. Kuldeep (leagal aid), Advocate For Respondent/State : Mr. Vivek Sharma, P.L. Hon'ble Shri Arvind Kumar Verma, Judge Order on Board 25/11/2025 1. With the consent of counsel for the parties, the matter is heard 0nally at mo- tion stage. 2. On 28.10.2025, a notice was issued to the complainant which was duly served to the complainant, however non appearance for the complainant in person or through his counsel. 3. This criminal appeal has been 0led under Section 415 (2) of Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita by the appellant against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 26.08.2025 passed by the learned Special Judge (Atrocities), Sarguja, District Ambikapur (C.G.), in Session Trial (Atrocities) Case No. 6/2024, whereby the appellant has been convicted and sentenced Digitally signed by JYOTI JHA Date: 2025.12.12 11:24:34 +0530 2 as follows:- Convicted under Sec- tions Sentenced to 307 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 R.I. for 7 years with 0ne of Rs. 10,000/- and in default of payment of 0ne, addi- tional R.I. for 3 months 4. Brie?y stated facts of the case leading to the disposal of this appeal are that the informant, Siyaram, lodged a report at Police Station Dhaurpur stating that he is engaged in agricultural work and is educated up to Class X. At a distance of about 200 meters from his house, situated on Lundra Road before the Machhali river, he runs a small tea and snack shop where he resides along with his family. At his ancestral house at Dhaurpur Dandpara, his father Govind Ram, his mother Kripalo, and his middle brother Bisun reside. On 07.02.2024, Wednesday, at around 08:00 a.m., his niece Riya informed him over phone that his father Govind Ram had been assaulted by their neighbour, Uttam Das, with a sharp-edged axe on his neck and ?ed from the spot. Upon receiving the said information, the informant reached the place of occurrence and found that his father had sustained an injury on the right side of the neck from which blood was oozing. It is alleged that the accused, Uttam Das Panika, questioned the victim as to why he was ploughing towards his land and, with the intention to kill, in?icted an axe blow with its sharp edge on the right side of the neck of the father of the informant, thereby causing grievous injury. Due to the assault, the victim fell on the ground. Believing that the victim had died, the accused ran away from the place of occurrence. Thereafter, the informant, along with his niece Riya, took his injured father on a motorcycle to the Government Hospital, Dhaurpur for treatment. After admitting his father in the hospital, he went to the police station to report the incident. The occurrence was witnessed by 3 his niece Riya, Sonali, his mother, and his son Ankush. Based on the written report submitted by the informant, an FIR bearing Crime No. 10/2024 was registered against the accused at Police Station Dhaurpur under Exhibit P- 1, and the matter was taken up for investigation. After completion of investigation, the police 0led the charge-sheet for the oFence under Section 307 of IPC. 5. So as to prove the complicity of the accused/appellant in the crime in question, prosecution has examined as many as 12 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. 6. After hearing the parties and going through the material available on record including the evidence of the witnesses, learned Special Judge (Atrocities), Sarguja, District Ambikapur has convicted and sentenced the accused/appellant as described in paragraph No. 2 of this judgment. Hence this appeal. 7. 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 the part of the accused/appellant to cause injury to the victim, the oFence 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 07.02.2024 to 25.08.2025 and is in jail since 26.08.2025 (almost one year, 9 months, and 18 days), the sentence imposed on him may be reduced to the period 4 already undergone. 8. 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 (PW-5), Siyaram Pekra (PW-1) and Dr. Usha Armo (PW-03) which gets corroboration from the testimony of other independent witnesses, the 0ndings recorded by the Special Judge (Atrocities), Sarguja, District Ambikapur holding the accused/appellant guilty under Section 307 IPC being based on proper appreciation of the evidence on record are fully justi0ed and do not call for any interference in this appeal. 9. Heard counsel for the parties at length and went through the evidence on record with utmost care and caution. 10.The victim/injured (PW-5) in his testimony, stated that he knew the accused, Uttam Das Panika, and that the accused was his neighbour. He stated that the incident took place on 7th February of the previous year. At the time of the incident, he was irrigating his agricultural 0eld. During that period, the accused, Uttam Das Panika, was standing behind him, but he could not see him. It was alleged that the accused suddenly struck him from behind on his head with a tangi (axe), causing an injury on the back of his neck, due to which he started bleeding. He raised an alarm, shouting for help, saying that Uttam Das was attacking him. Upon hearing his cries, his granddaughter Riya came out of the house and raised an alarm. Thereafter, his granddaughter Riya, one Sonali, and his grandson Ankush reached the place of occurrence, whereupon the accused ?ed from the spot. According to the witness, thereafter his grandchildren lifted him, and subsequently, his younger son Siyaram arrived and took him to the Dhourpur Hospital. The injured witness, Govind Ram (PW-5), stated that stitches were made to his injuries at the hospital. Thereafter, police oHcials came to the Dhourpur 5 Hospital and examined him. He was referred from Dhourpur Hospital to Ambikapur for further treatment, where he remained admitted for 0ve days and received treatment. The witness further stated that prior to the incident, the accused, Uttam Das, was annoyed with him as he had sold his paddy crop. Earlier also, the accused used to abuse him in obscene language and had stated that he would see how much paddy he (the witness) was selling. On that issue, he had convened a village meeting (darbar), which the accused did not attend. Four to 0ve days after that incident, the accused allegedly made a murderous attack on him with a tangi. 11.Complainant Siyaram Pekra (PW-1) stated in his deposition that he incident occurred on 07 February 2024 at about 8:00 a.m., on the date of the incident, he was working at his hotel situated at a short distance from his residence. At that time, his niece Riya called him on the phone and informed him that his father, Govind Ram, had been assaulted on his neck with an iron tangi (axe) by the accused, Uttam Das Panika, who thereafter ?ed from the spot. According to this witness, he immediately went to his house and saw that his father, Govind Ram, was lying on the ground. His father had sustained an injury on his neck, there was a cut wound and blood was oozing from it. He then lifted his father and took him to the Dhourpur Hospital, got him admitted there, and thereafter went to Police Station Dhourpur and lodged the report against the accused, which was recorded as Ex. P-1. 12. Dr. Usha Amro (PW-03) who medically examined the victim, found that on 07.02.2024 at about 1:00 p.m., the injured, Govind Ram, was brought to the emergency department by his family members. The injured was initially examined by the emergency medical oHcer, and thereafter, he was referred to the ENT department. Upon his arrival in the ENT department, the condition of the injured was found to be stable. A pre-sutured wound was 6 noticed on the right posterior side of the neck, measuring 6 cm in length, with dressing applied over it. Other than the said injury, no other injury marks were present on the body of the injured. This witness further stated that after treatment, the injured was discharged from the hospital on 12.02.2024. 13. Now, the question is, whether the trial Court is justi0ed in convicting the appellant for oFence under Section 307 of the IPC.? 14. 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 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.” 15.The essential ingredients required to be proved in the case of an oFence 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 7 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. 16.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 oFence 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 in?icted are some of the factors that may be taken into consideration to determine the intention. 17.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 in?icted. 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. 8 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. 18.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 oFence under Section 307 of the IPC, two ingredients of the oFence 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 commissio 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 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. " 19. 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 oFence under Section 307 of the IPC and held as under:- “12. For the purpose of conviction under Section 307 IPC, 9 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.” 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 in?icted, 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 0ndings 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. 10 21.However, with regard to the quantum of sentence, it is evident from the record that the injury was simple in nature and the injured survived after receiving timely medical treatment, there is no material to suggest any prior criminal antecedents of the appellant, and the incident appears to have occurred in the heat of passion on account of a prior quarrel regarding sale of paddy. It is also not disputed that the accused/appellant has already remained behind the bars from 07.02.2024 to 25.08.2025 and is in jail since 26.08.2025, thus they have undergone more than one year, 9 months, and 18 days of imprisonment. Thus this Court is of the view that the sentence imposed requires modi0cation in the interest of justice. 22.Accordingly, while upholding the conviction of the appellants under Section 307 of IPC, the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for seven years awarded by the trial Court is reduced to rigorous imprisonment for three years. The 0ne imposed by the trial Court is maintained. 23.The appellant is in jail and he shall serve out the sentence as modi.ed above. 24.With the above modi0cation in sentence, the criminal appeal stands partly allowed. The rest of the judgment of conviction is aHrmed. The record of the trial Court be sent back along with a copy of this judgment for compliance. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge Jyoti