1 2025:CGHC:61204 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 1297 of 2025 Kuber Minz S/o Aetva Minj Aged About 55 Years R/o Village - Keradih Bartoli, P.S. - Narayanpur, District - Jashpur Chhattisgarh ... Appellant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, Police Station - Narayanpur, District - Jashpur Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Appellant : Mr. J.K. Saxena, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Ms. Priya Sharma, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma Judgment on Board 16/12/2025 1. This criminal appeal has been filed under Section 415 (2) of BNSS, 2023 by the appellant against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 28.06.2025 passed by the learned First Additional Sessions Judge, Kunkuri, District- Jashpur (C.G.) 2 in Sessions Trial No. 07/2023, whereby the appellant has been convicted and sentenced as follows:- Convicted under Sections Sentenced to 307 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 R.I. for 5 years with fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default of payment of fine, ad- ditional R.I. for 6 months 2. Briefly stated facts of the case leading to the disposal of this appeal are that the complainant Rujla Minj lodged report at Police Station, Narayanpur, alleging therein that on 08.11.2022 in the morning, due to land dispute the appellant has assaulted with her with intention to kill her and thereafter fled away. Based on the aforesaid report, the police registered the offence under Section 307 of IPC against the appellant and upon completion of usual investigation, the charge sheet was filed before the Court below from where the case was committed to the learned Trial Court ffor trial according to law. 3. So as to prove the complicity of the accused/appellant in the crime in question, prosecution has examined as many as 10 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. 4. After hearing the parties and going through the material available on record including the evidence of the witnesses, learned First 3 Additional Sessions Judge, Kunkuri, District- Jashpur (C.G.) has convicted and sentenced the accused/appellant as described in paragraph No. 2 of this judgment. Hence this appeal. 5. 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 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 from 08.111.2022 to 11.01.2023 (64 days) and then from the date of judgment, i.e., 28.06.2025 till date (more than 5 months), the sentence imposed on him may be reduced to the period already undergone. 6. 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-1), eye witness Manbhajan (PW-2), and Dr. Sunil Lakda (PW-07) which gets corroboration from the testimony of other independent witnesses, the findings recorded by the First Additional Sessions Judge, Kunkuri, District- Jashpur holding the accused/appellant guilty under Section 307 4 IPC being based on proper appreciation of the evidence on record are fully justified and do not call for any interference in this appeal. 7. Heard counsel for the parties at length and went through the evidence on record with utmost care and caution. 8. From the evidence of Rujla Minj victim/injured (PW-1) it is apparent that on the date of incident i.e. on 08.11.2022 at 9 am, he went and sat with Manbhanjan Lohar from the village. Manbhanjan Lohar was working in the shed and making a sickle. Kuber Minj, his uncle's son, came there and started verbally abusing him with foul language and pushed and shoved him, asking if he would leave his land. The victim said he would not leave it, the case is going on in court. Then the accused Kuber Minj took out the sickle Manbhanjan was working on and injured the left neck of the victim. The accused Kuber Minj hit him with the sickle with the intention of killing him. The victim had a lot of injury on his neck, from which a lot of blood was coming out. Then Manbhanjan Lohar, who was present there, brought a towel from his house and wrapped it around the victim’s neck. From the spot, the victim booked an auto and went to the Narayanpur police station and reported the incident to the Narayanpur police station. After the report, the policemen took me to the government hospital in Narayanpur for treatment where the doctor stitched his injury. From there they brought the victim to the government hospital Kunkuri where he was kept admitted for two days and his injury was x-rayed. 5 9. she made a call to the accused for returning her mobile, then accused said to her to come to the forest in Palgi Village of Pashupatipur Village. Thereafter she along with her friend namely Devmuni went to village Palgi where the accused has refused to give her phone back. Saying so, the accused/appellant has hit on her head and the injuries so caused started bleeding making her fall down on the ground. According to her, the accused was strangling her. When the victim asked Devmuni to pick her up and take her home, the accused also pushed Devmuni Down with his hand and after than the accused ran away from there. 10. (PW-2)/ eye-witness supporting the statement of the injured and case of the prosecution, confirmed that the victim was bleeding profusely from the neck and he used a cloth to tie the wound at the scene. 11. PW-7/ Dr. Sunil Lakra stated that the accused hit the victim on the neck with a sickle. A report was sent to the P.H.C. Narayanpur to conduct examination and inform about the result. He also stated that clothes, shirt, head and neck of the victim were stained with blood. Secondly, blood was flowing from the back left side of the neck. Thirdly, there was a cut wound measuring 2x2x1 inches. Fourthly, the wound was caused by hard and blunt object. The doctor advised an X-ray of the neck and a consultation with a surgeon. On 08.11.2022, the doctor determined the victim’s injuries were serious in nature. 6 12.Thus from the evidence of the victim (PW-1), Manbhajan (PW-2) and Dr. Sunil Lakra (PW-7) it is crystal clear that it is the accused/appellant who assaulted the victim with the help of sickle as a result of which he suffered injury on the left side of his neck. Medical evidence also goes to show that there was a sharp weapon injury on his neck. Since the injury was grievous in nature, he was taken to hospital at Narayanpur. According the statement of the Dr. Sunil Lakra (PW-07), the injury sustained by the injured was grievous in nature. 13. Now, the question is, whether the trial Court is justified in convicting the appellant for offence 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 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.” 7 15.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 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 8 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. 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 9 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 on the prosecution that the accused had attempted to commit the murder of the prosecution 10 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 report of the medical report (Ex.P-8), and taking into consideration the aforesaid judicial pronouncements of the Apex Court, this Court has no hesitation to hold that the 11 findings 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. 21.As regards sentence, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, particularly, the fact that there is no previous enmity between the appellant and the victim and the dispute arose for land dispute, the sentence of 5 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 rigorous imprisonment for 1 year. However, fine imposed by trial Court is maintained. 22.The appellant is in jail and he shall serve out the sentence as modified above. 23.With the aforesaid observations, the criminal appeal is partly allowed. 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