1 CRA No. 1066 of 2023 2025:CGHC:20476 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 1066 of 2023 [Arising out of judgment dated 05.04.2023 passed in Sessions Trial No.39/2022 by the 1 st Additional Sessions Judge Bemtara, District Bemetara, Chhattisgarh.] 1. Kishor Mire S/o Shri Peela Ram Mire, aged about 36 years, R/o Village – Jhal, Police Station – Nawagarh, District – Bemetara, Chhattisgarh. 2. Prabhat Mire S/o Shri Peela Ram Mire, aged about 32 years, R/o Village – Jhal, Police Station – Nawagarh, District – Bemetara, Chhattisgarh. ... Appellants versus  State of Chhattisgarh through – the Station House Officer, Police Station – Nawagarh, District – Bemetara, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent For Appellants :- Ms. Shivali Dubey, Advocate. For State-Respondent :- Mr. Afroz Khan, Panel Lawyer. ANKIT KUMAR SINGH Digitally signed by ANKIT KUMAR SINGH Date: 2025.05.06 17:38:41 +0530 2 CRA No. 1066 of 2023 Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Judgment On Board 05/05/2025 1. Assail in the present criminal appeal filed under Section 374(2) of the CrPC preferred by the two appellants namely Kishore Mire (A-1) and Prabhat Mire (A-2), is to the legality, validity and correctness of the judgment dated 05.04.2023 passed by the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Bemetara, District Bemetara, Chhattisgarh, in Sessions Trial No. 39/2022 by which the appellants herein have been convicted for offence under Section 307 read with Section 34 of the IPC and sentenced thereunder to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 10 years with fine of 1,000/- each; in default of payment of ₹ fine amount the appellants have to undergo additional rigorous imprisonment for one month. 2. Factual matrix of the case, in brief, is that on 28.07.2022 between 11:30 am to 12:00 noon, at village Jhal, Police Station – Nawagarh, District – Bemetara, Chhattisgarh, the two appellants herein, in furtherance of their common intention, assaulted Tikaram Patle (PW-1) and his wife Hemlata Patle (PW-2) with sharp edged weapon i.e. knife by which they 3 CRA No. 1066 of 2023 suffered injuries which were sufficient in ordinary course of nature to cause death. The said act of the appellants was reported by Shivkumar Patle (PW-3), father of PW-1, pursuant to which FIR was registered vide Ex.P/17. Crime details form and nazari naksha were prepared vide Exs.P/11 & P/13, respecitvely. Tikaram Patle (PW-1) & Hemlata Patle (PW-2) were firstly examined by Dr. M.M. Raza (PW-14) who prepared their medical reports vide Exs.P/28 & P/29, respectively. As per the medical report of PW-1 (Ex.P/28) & PW-2 (Ex.P/29), PW-1 has suffered 14 injuries and PW-2 has suffered 4 injuries. However, for better treatment of PW-1 & PW-2, Dr. M.M. Raza (PW-14) referred them to Life Line Hospital, Mungeli, where they (PW-1 & PW-2) were examined by Dr. Vedprakash Dewangan (PW-7). PW-1 & PW-2 both were admitted in the Life Line Hospital, Mungeli on 28.07.2022 and discharged from the hospital on 07.08.2022, meaning thereby, they were hospitalised for 10 days. Wheels of investigation started running and the appellants were arrested. Pursuant to memorandum statement of A-2 Prabhat Mire (Ex.P/7) weapon of offene i.e. knife was seized vide Ex.p/8. As per the query report (Ex.P/30) proved by Dr. 4 CRA No. 1066 of 2023 M.M. Raza (PW-14), the injuries which were found over the body of the victims (PW-1 & PW-2) could be caused by the said seized wepon of offence i.e. knife. Clothes of the appellants were seized vide Exs.P/8 & P/9. Other articles were also sezied. Seized articles were sent for chemical analysis to FSL and as per FSL report (Ex.P/27) on the weapon of offence i.e. knife (article D) blood was found and on the clothes of the appellants (articles E & F) as well as on the clothes of PW-1 (article H) human blood was found. 3. After due investigation, appellants were charge-sheeted for the aforesaid offence and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions for trial in accordance with law. The appellants / accused persons abjured their guilt and entered into defence. 4. During the course of trial, in order to bring home the offence, the prosecution has examined as many as 14 witnesses and exhibited 32 documents, whereas, the appellants in defence has neither examined any witness nor exhibited any document. Statements of the appellants were recorded under Section 313 of CrPC in which they denied the circumstances 5 CRA No. 1066 of 2023 appearing against them in the evidence brought on record, pleaded innocence and false implication. 5. The learned trial Court after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence available on record, convicted the appellants for the offence as mentioned in the opening paragraph of the judgment, against which this appeal has been preferred by the appellants herein questioning the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence. 6. Ms. Shivali Dubey, learned counsel for the appellants, would submit that the trial Court is absolutely unjustified in convicting the appellants for the offence in question. She would also submit that considering the nature of injuries which were simple in nature and PW-1 & PW-2 were hospitalised only for 10 days and even all the injuries were on the non vital part of the body. In alternative, she would submit that if the case of the prosecution is taken as it is, at the most offence under Section 325 of the IPC would be made out against the appellants. Therefore, the appellants are sentenced to the period already undergone by them as they 6 CRA No. 1066 of 2023 were in jail since 28.07.2022. Thus, the appeal be allowed in full or part. 7. Mr. Afroz Khan, learned State counsel, would submit that prosecution has been able to bring home the offence beyond reasonable doubt. He would also submit that the manner in which the appellants assaulted PW-1 Tikaram Patle and his wife PW-2 Hemlata Patle by knife, which was witnessed by PW-3, explicitly shows the intention of the appellants that they wanted to cause the death of the victims (PW- & PW-2) as PW-1 has suffered 14 injuries and PW-2 has suffered 4 injuries over their bodies and they were hospitlised for 10 days. Therefore, the appeal deserves to be dismissed and the appellants are not entitled for acquittal. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein-above and gone through the records minutely. 9. Now, the question for consideration, would be whether the trial Court is justified in convicting the appellants for offence under Section 307 of the IPC? 7 CRA No. 1066 of 2023 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 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.” 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. 8 CRA No. 1066 of 2023 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 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 1 (1988) 4 SCC 551 2 (2003) 10 SCC 434 9 CRA No. 1066 of 2023 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. ...” 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: 3 (2004) 13 SCC 189 10 CRA No. 1066 of 2023 (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. ...” 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 4 (2015) 11 SCC 366 11 CRA No. 1066 of 2023 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.” 16. Coming to the facts of the present case in light of the principles of law laid down by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in the aforesaid judgments for offence under Section 307 of the IPC, it is quite vivid that the victims Tikaram Patle (PW-1) and his wife Hemlata Patle (PW-2) have clealry supported the case of prosecution. PW-1 in his statement before the Court has clearly stated that on the date of offence, when he was going to Raipur with his wife Hemlata Patle (PW-2) and children on his motorcycle, appellants came on his way on their motorcycle and stopped him. Thereafter, firstly A-2 assaulted him (PW-1) on his head due to which he fell down and then both the appellants 12 CRA No. 1066 of 2023 assaulted him with sharp edged weapon i.e. knife, similarly, A-1 assaulted his wife (PW-2) on her head with the same weapon of offence due to which she fell down and thereafter, the appellants assaulted her with the said knife by which they suffered grievous injuries. They (PW-1 & PW-2) were undergone for treatment in the Life Line Hospital, Mungeli for 10 days. Tikaram Patle (PW-1) and his wife Hemlata Patle (PW-2) both were firstly examined by Dr. M.M. Raza (PW-14) who prepared their medical reports vide Exs.P/28 & P/29, respecitvely. As per medical report of PW-1 (Ex.P/28), he has suffered 14 injuries over his body and as per medical report of PW-2 (Ex.P/29) she has suffered 4 injuries over her body. As per Dr. Vedprakash Dewangan (PW-7) who treated the victims (PW-1 & PW-2), has opined that the injuries which were caused over the body of the victims were dangerous in nature and also stated that the victims were hospitalised on 28.07.2022 and discharged on 07.08.2022, meaning thereby they were admitted in the hospital for 10 days. As such, I hereby affirm the finding of the trial Court with regard to conviction of the appellants for offence under Section 307/34 of the IPC. 13 CRA No. 1066 of 2023 Conclusion:- 17. Considering the nature of injuries and aslo the manner in which the injuries caused by the appellants over the body of the victims, the intention of the appellants quite clear that they wanted to cause the death of the victims as the victims have suffered injuries on the vital part of the body and they remained hospitalised for 10 days, the conviction of the appellants for offence under Section 307/34 of the IPC is well merited. However, considering the age of Kishore Mire (A-1) i.e. 36 years and Prabhat Mire (A-2) i.e. 32 years on the date of offence and also nothing has been brought on record that they have committed any jail offence during their incarceration, it would be appropriate to reduce the sentence of the appellants for the offence in question. Accordingly, each of the appellants is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 4 years instead of ten years while maintaining their conviction for offence under Section 307/34 of the IPC. 18. So far as the fine amount awarded by the trial Court is concerned, the fine amount is enhanced from 1,000/- each ₹ to 5,000/- each, to be deposited by the appellants within 30 ₹ 14 CRA No. 1066 of 2023 days from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment. However, it is needless to mention here that if the fine of ₹ 1,000/- has already been deposited by the appellants pursuant to direction of the trial Court, the same shall be adjusted in the enhanced fine amount 5,000/- as directed ₹ by this Court. It is made clear that the said fine amount will be disbursed by the concerned trial Court to the victims as compensation within thirty days from the date of deposite of the said fine amount by the appellants and a report of the same will be submitted by the concerned trial Court before the Registery of this Court. 19. This criminal appeal is partly allowed to the extent indicated herein-above. 20. Let a certified copy of this judgment along with the original record be transmitted to the trial Court concerned and also the copy of this judgment be supplied to the concerned Superintendent of Jail where the appellants are lodged and suffering jail sentence, forthwith for information and necessary action, if any. Sd/- Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge Ankit