1 2025:CGHC:11857 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 562 of 2023 {Arising out of judgment dated 16.02.2023 passed in Sessions Trial No.32/2020 by the learned Second Additional Sessions Judge, Balodabazar} 1 - Gopi Kishan Chhindole, S/o. Amru Chhindole, Aged About 18 Years, R/o. Village Purani Basti, District Balodabazar-Bhataparam (C.G.) 2 - Harishankar Navrange, S/o. Kulanjan Navrange, Aged About 18 Years, R/o. Village Purani Basti, District Balodabazar-Bhatapara (C.G.) ... Appellants versus State Of Chhattisgarh, Through Police Station City Kotwali, Balodabazar, District Balodabazar-Bhatapara (C.G.) ... Respondent For Appellants : Ms. Ruchi Nagar, Advocate For Respondent : Dr. Surendra Kumar Dewangan, Panel Lawyer ASHOK SAHU Digitally signed by ASHOK SAHU Date: 2025.03.12 11:11:16 +0530 2 (Single Bench) Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Judgment on Board (10.03.2025) Sanjay K. Agrawal, J. 1. This criminal appeal preferred by the appellants under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C. is directed against the impugned judgment dated 16.02.2023, passed by the learned Second Additional Sessions Judge, Balodabazar, in Sessions Trial No.32/2020, by which the appellants herein have been convicted for offence under Section 307/34 of Indian Penal Code (two times) and sentenced to undergo 7 years rigorous imprisonment (two times) and fine of Rs.1000/- each (two times), in default of payment of fine, 3 months additional rigorous imprisonment with a direction to run both the sentences concurrently. 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 20.07.2020 at night, the victims Yogesh Shrey (PW-2) and Ankit Fekar (PW- 3) both were playing game in the mobile near Devraha Pond, Balodabazar, then the appellants came there and assaulted the victims PW-2 & PW-3 by hand & fists and knife, by which they have suffered grievous injuries on their shoulder and chest, 3 which were sufficient to cause death and thereby the offence has been committed. Complainant Sarita Shrey (PW-1) reported the matter to the police, pursuant to which, FIR was registered vide Ex.P-1 and MLC of both the victims (PW-2 & PW-3) was conducted by Dr. Shashi Kumar Jaiswal (PW-13) vide Ex.P-24 & Ex.P-23. Pursuant to memorandum statement of the both the appellants, knives were seized vide Ex.P-8 & Ex.P-9, which were sent for chemical examination to FSL along-with other seized articles and as per the FSL report (Ex.P-22), blood was found on the seized weapon of offence i.e. knives. After due investigation, appellants were charge- sheeted for the aforesaid offences before the jurisdictional criminal court, which was ultimately committed to the Court of Sessions for hearing and disposal in accordance with law, in which the appellants abjured their guilt and entered into defence stating that they have not committed any offence and they have been falsely implicated. 3. The trial Court after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence on record, convicted the appellants for the offence under Section 307/34 of I.P.C. (two times) and sentenced to undergo 7 years rigorous imprisonment (two times), against which the present appeal has been preferred. 4 4. Ms. Ruchi Nagar, learned counsel for the appellants, would submit that most of the injuries were inflicted in non-vital part of the body and the appellants are in jail for more than 2 years and 5 months; therefore, they may be sentenced for the period already undergone and the appeal be allowed in part. 5. Dr. Surendra Kumar Dewangan, learned State counsel, would support the impugned judgment and submit that the prosecution has been able to bring home the offence beyond reasonable doubt and the trial Court has rightly convicted the appellant for the aforesaid offence; therefore, the appeal deserves to be dismissed. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein-above and went through the records with utmost circumspection. 7. Now, the question is, whether the trial court is justified in convicting the appellants for offence under Section 307 of the IPC ? 8. 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 5 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.” 9. 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. 10. 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 1 (1988) 4 SCC 551 6 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. 11. 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 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: - 2 (2003) 10 SCC 434 7 “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. ...” 12. 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: (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 3 (2004) 13 SCC 189 8 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. ...” 13. 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 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 4 (2015) 11 SCC 366 9 appellant under Section 307 IPC. In our considered view, the conviction of the second appellant Rajbir @ Raju under Section 307 IPC is unassailable.” 14. Coming to the facts of the case in the light of the aforesaid principles of law laid down by their Lordships of the Supreme Court for offence under Section 307 of the I.P.C., it is quite vivid that the victim Yogesh Shrey (PW-2) was remained hospitalized for 22 days and he was examined by Dr. Shashi Kumar Jaiswal (PW-13) vide Ex.P-24, in which it has been stated that victim (PW-2) has suffered stab wounds. Similarly, the victim Ankit Fekar (PW-3) was remained in the hospital for 20 days and he was also medically examined by Dr. Shashi Kumar Jaiswal (PW-13) vide Ex.P-23, which shows that he has suffered four stab injuries. As such, considering the nature of injuries suffered by the victims (PW-2 & PW-3), the conviction of both the appellants is well merited. However, the sentence of 7 years rigorous imprisonment awarded to the appellants for the offence under Section 307/34 of I.P.C. is reduced to 3 years rigorous imprisonment. Fine sentence would remain as it is. 15. Accordingly, this criminal appeal is partly allowed to the extent indicated herein-above. 10 16. Let a certified copy of this judgment along with the original record be transmitted forthwith to the concerned trial Court for necessary information & action, if any. A copy of the judgment may also be sent to the concerned Jail Superintendent forthwith wherein the appellants are suffering the jail sentence. Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge Ashok