1 2025:CGHC:58840 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 599 of 2024 Pushpendra Sidar S/o Nandlal Sidar Aged About 22 Years R/o Village Bakeli, Police Station Kharsiya, District Raigarh (C.G.) --- Appellant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Thana In Charge Police Station Kharsiya, District Raigarh (C.G.) --- Respondent(s) CRA No. 1249 of 2024 Bhushan Sidar S/o Balram Aged About 26 Years R/o Village Bakeli, Police Station Kharsiya, Raigarh District Raigarh Chhattisgarh ---Appellant Versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Arakshi Kendra Kharsiya, Raigarh District Raigarh Chhattisgarh --- Respondent(s) 2 CRA No. 611 of 2024 Anil Yadav S/o Shri Rasiya Ram Aged About 24 Years R/o Village- Bakeli, Police Station Kharsia, District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh ---Appellant Versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station Kharsia, District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh --- Respondent(s) For Appellants : Mr. Rajendra Tripathi along with Mr. Amit Sing Chouhan and Mr. Basant Dewangan, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Ms. Sunita Manikpuri, Dy. G.A. Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma Judgment on Board 04/12/2025 1. With the consent of the parties these criminal appeals are heard finally. 2. These criminal appeals have been filed under Section 374 (2) of Cr.P.C. by the appellants against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 07.03.2024 passed by the learned Sec- ond Additional Sessions Judge, Raigarh, District- Raigarh (C.G.), in Sessions Trial No. 64/2022, whereby the appellants have been convicted and sentenced as follows:- 3 Conviction Sentence u/s 307/34 of IPC R.I. for 7 years and fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default of fine, SI for 1 month. u/s 394/34 of IPC RI for 7 years and fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default of fine, SI for 1 month. Both the sentences shall run concurrently and the fine amount has already been deposited. 3. Briefly stated facts of the case leading to the disposal of these appeals are that the complainant namely Himanshu Agrawal who is the owner of crusher and Purshottam Bharadwaj who is watch- man of crusher. On 29.07.2022 at about 12.30 pm the father of Purshottam Bharadwaj namely Bhagwat Lal has informed to Hi- manshu Agrawal through his mobile that Purshottam Bharadwaj is in very serious condition, he is bleeding a lot then complainant reached there with his father namely Ashok Agrawal. Near drain Purshottam Bharadwaj was lying unconscious on the ground, his head and body were injured, blood was oozing and he told that at about 11:00- 11:30 Anil Yadav, Bhushan Sidar and Pushpen- dra Sidar with intention of looting his mobile phone assaulted him with iron rod and looted him and one battery of tractor and threw him near the drain. 4. So as to prove the complicity of the accused/appellants in the crime in question, prosecution has examined as many as 11 wit- nesses. Statement of the accused/appellants under Section 313 4 Cr.PC was also recorded in which they pleaded 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 Sec- ond Additional Sessions Judge, Raigarh, District Raigarh has convicted and sentenced the accused/appellants as described in paragraph No. 2 of this judgment. Hence this appeal. 6. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the prosecution has utterly failed to prove its case under Section 307 and 394 of IPC beyond all reasonable doubts. He further submits that as there was no intention on the part of the accused/appellants to cause injury to the victim, the offence under Section 307 and 394 of IPC is not made out. Alternatively, counsel for the accused/ap- pellants submits that if the conviction part of the judgment im- pugned is not going to be interfered with, keeping in mind the fact that the accused/appellants has already remained behind the bars since 30.07.2022 and have undergone around 3 years and 4 months of jail sentence, the sentence imposed on them 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 (PW-1), Dr. Anil Kumar Kush- waha (PW-4) which gets corroboration from the testimony of 5 other independent witnesses, the findings recorded by the Sec- ond Additional Sessions Judge, Raigarh holding the accused/ap- pellant guilty under Section 307 and 394 r/w 34 of 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 evi- dence on record with utmost care and caution. 9. From the evidence available on record, it is clearly established that at the time of the incident, the accused persons assaulted the injured Purushottam Lal Bhardwaj by means of an iron rod and stones. As a result of the assault, the injured sustained in- juries on the right side of his head, near the left eye, on his back, and on his right leg due to stone pelting. 10. The aforesaid facts stand duly corroborated by the medical evi- dence on record, particularly the testimony of PW-4 Dr. Anil Ku- mar Kushwaha and PW-11 Dr. Kunti Nayak, as well as the injury report (Exhibit P-10) prepared by the Medical Officer. Further corroboration is derived from the seizure memo of the incriminat- ing articles (Exhibit P-24), which does not give rise to any doubt whatsoever. 11. Upon appreciation and analysis of the evidence adduced in the case, it is evident that the accused persons have failed to furnish any plausible or satisfactory explanation to rebut the incriminat- ing circumstances proved against them. 6 12. It is further proved that, due to previous enmity, the accused as- saulted the injured with an iron rod, inflicted injuries on his head with the intention of causing his death, and by putting him in fear of instant injury, committed assault and robbery, during which they looted the battery of his tractor and his Vivo company mo- bile phone 13. Now, the question is, whether the trial Court is justified in convict- ing 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.” 12. The essential ingredients required to be proved in the case of an offence under Section 307 of the IPC are: 7 (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. 15. 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 it is used,motive for the crime, severity of 8 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. 16. 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. 17. 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 9 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. " 18. 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:- 10 “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 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.” 19. Thus taking a cumulative note of the medical evidence collected by the prosecution; looking to the nature of the weapon used, 11 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-10), and taking into consideration the aforesaid judicial pronouncements of the Apex Court, and on the basis of the entire evidence and its proper appreciation, the prosecution has successfully established beyond reasonable doubt that on the date of the incident, the accused persons, acting with common intention, attempted to commit the murder of the injured by inflicting injuries on his head with an iron rod, and thereafter committed robbery. 20. Consequently, this Court finds that the prosecution has proved the charges against the accused persons beyond reasonable doubt under Sections 307/34 and 394/34 of the Indian Penal Code. this Court has no hesitation to hold that the findings recorded by the trial Court convicting the accused/appellants under Section 307/34 and 394/34 of 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, age of the appellants at present and there is no previous antecedents against the appellants in the same nature, 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 the appellants is reduced to rigorous imprisonment for 4 years and the fine imposed by trial Court is enhanced from Rs. 12 1000/- under Section 307/34 of IPC and Rs. 1000/- under Section 394/34 of IPC to Rs. 2000/- under Section 307/34 of IPC and Rs. 2000/- under Section 394/34 of IPC to each appellant. 22. The appellants are in jail and they 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