1 2025:CGHC:6691 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 709 of 2024 1 - Lalman Manikpuri S/o Late Ramprasad, Aged About 60 Years R/o Village Salwahi (Nawatola), Police Station Dindo, Police Station Trikunda District Balrampur Ramanujganj, Chhattisgarh ... Appellant(s) versus 1 - The State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Office Police Station House Office, Police Station Trikunda, District Balrampur Ramanujganj Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Appellant(s) : Mr. G.V.K. Rao, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mrs. Prabha Sharma, Panel Lawyer Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma, Judge Order on Board 05/02/2025 1. With the consent of counsel for the parties, the matter is heard fi- nally at motion stage. 2. This criminal appeal has been filed under Section 14(A)(1) of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 by the appellant against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 09.02.2024 passed by Special Judge 2 (S.C. & S.T. Pevention of Atrocities Act), Balrampur place at Ra- manujganj, District Balrampur-Ramanujganj (C.G.), in Special Session Case No. 25/2022, whereby the appellant has been con- victed and sentenced as follows:- Conviction Sentence U/s 307 of IPC R.I. for 7 years and fine of Rs. 500/-, in default of payment of fine, additional R.I. for 2 months. U/s 27 of Arms Act R.I. for 3 years and fine of Rs. 300/-, in default of payment of fine, additional R.I. for 1 month. 3. Briefly stated facts of the case leading to the disposal of this appeal are that on 25.03.2022 at about 9:00 pm, the injured Devsai was sleeping in bed outside the house of Bifan Manikpuri, at that time, the appellant came there and assaulted Devsai with the help of knife and then fled away. The injured Devsai received stab injury in his chest and he was taken to Dindo hospital for treatment from where he was referred to Wardrafnagar Hospital, where he availed treatment for 3-4 days. The incident was reported to the police station Trikunda where the offence under Section 307 of IPC and Sections 25 and 27 of Arms Act were registered against the appellant and after completing the necessary investigation, the charge sheet was submitted before the court below and the trial began. 4. So as to prove the complicity of the accused/appellant in the crime in question, prosecution has examined as many as 9 witnesses. 3 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 Special Judge (S.C. & S.T. Pevention of Atrocities Act), Balrampur place at Ramanujganj, District Balrampur-Ramanujganj (C.G.) 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 the part of the accused/appellant to cause death of the victim, the offence 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 since 26.03.2022, 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 4 statements of the injured/victim (PW-2), eye witness Dev Muni (PW-4), and Dr. Kamini Rai (PW-07) which gets corroboration from the testimony of other independent witnesses, the findings recorded by the Special Judge (S.C. & S.T. Pevention of Atrocities Act), Balrampur place at Ramanujganj, District Balrampur- Ramanujganj (C.G.) holding the accused/appellant guilty under Section 307 IPC being based on proper appreciation of the evidence on record are fully justified 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. From the evidence of Devsai/injured (PW-2) it is apparent that on the date of incident i.e. on 25.03.2022 at around 9:00 pm he was sitting on the bed kept outside the house of Bifan Manikpuri and was talking to his relative where the accused/appellant suddenly came and stabbed him with a knife on his chest and the accused ran away and went in his home and closed the door from inside. Bifan, Devmuni, Sukhraj were present on the place of incident. The people present at the place of incident took the injured to Dindo hospital from where he was referred to Wardrafnagar Hospital where he was admitted for 3-4 days. 10. PW-03/ Son Sai (brother of injured) has deposed in examination- in-chief that he runs an egg shop near his house and on the date of incident, i.e. on 25.03.2022 at around 9:00 pm he was sitting in 5 his shop and his brother (injured) was sitting on the bed kept outside the house of Bifan and was talking where the accused/appellant suddenly came and stabbed his brother with knife and ran into his house and locked his door from inside. Thereafter hearing the noise he went to the place and took his brother to Dindo Hospital from where his brother was referred to Wardrafnagar Hospital. He has further stated that the accused/appellant doubt him that he performs डायन टोनही because of which the accused restricts his family members to go to his house. He further contended that the accused/appellant has stabbed his brother with knife because he doubts him that he performs डायन टोनही. 11. PW-04/ Dev muni has deposed in her statement the accused/appellant is her father-in-law and on the date of incident, i.e. on 25.03.2022 at around 9:00 pm the injured was lying on the bed kept outside my house was talking to someone over his mobile where the accused/appellant suddenly came and stabbed the injured and ran into his house and locked his door from inside. She further admitted in her cross-examination that she along with her husband does not reside with her father-in-law. She refused that she had an illicit relation with the injured. 12. PW-07/ Dr. Kamini Rai who medically examined the victim and gave her report (Ex.P-10) on 25.03.2022 and has stated that a stitched wound of 6 stitches present over chest caused by hard and sharp object and the duration was of about 3-4 hours. On 6 02.04.2022 she gave her report (Ex. P/11) with the opinion that after studying the x-ray report of injured Devsai the injury is simple in nature. Ex. P/12 is the query report given by the doctor where she stated that length of knife was 22 cm, width was 2 cm back side and 1 cm front side and opined that the knife can cause injury and and if he has not been given treatment on time, he could have died. 13. Thus from the evidence of the victim (PW-2), Son Sai (PW-3), Devmuni (PW-4) and Dr. Kamini Rai (PW-07) it is crystal clear that it is the accused/appellant who assaulted the victim with the help of knife as a result of which he suffered injury on his chest. Medical evidence also goes to show that there was a sharp weapon injury on his chest. He was taken to Dindo hospital and thereafter he was referred to Wardrafnagar hospital for further treatment. According the statement of the Dr. Kamini Rai (PW-07), the injury sustained by the injured was simple in nature but if he has not been given treatment on time, he could have died. 14. Now, the question is, whether the trial Court is justified inconvicting the appellant for offence under Section 307 of the IPC? 15. 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 7 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.” 12. 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. 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 8 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. 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 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 1 (1988) 4 SCC 5512 ( 2003) 10 SCC 434 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. 9 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 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 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 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. " 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 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 10 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 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.” 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 inflicted, keeping in mind the medical report (Ex.P-10 and 11), and taking into consideration the aforesaid judicial pronouncements of the Apex Court, this Court has no hesitation to hold that the findings recorded by the trial Court convicting the accused/appellant under Section 307 IPC are based on due appreciation of the 11 evidence on record and deserve to be and are hereby maintained. 21. As regards sentence, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, age of the accused, particularly, the fact that the accused stabbed the victim injury caused to him is not fatal, further the accused/ appellant is in jail since 26.03.2022 and he has completed about 3 years and 1 month of jail sentence awarded by the trial court, therefore, the sentence of 7 years imposed by the trial Court appears to excessively on the higher side and therefore, this Court is of the opinion that it would be in the interest of justice if the sentence imposed on him is reduced to the period already undergone by him. However, fine imposed by trial Court is maintained. 22. With the aforesaid observations, the criminal appeal is partly allowed. 23. The appellant is in jail, therefore, he may be released from the jail if not required in any other case. 24. Let a copy of this order and the original records be transmitted to the trial court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) JUDGE Madhurima