Rambabu vs State Of Madhya Pradesh

This Court had given an option to the counsel for the appellant that if he is inclined to argue finally, then he can argue, however, it is submitted by the counsel for the appellant that at present, he would like to advance his arguments only on the question of suspension of sentence and he has no instruction to argue the matter finally.

IA No. 1466/2019 is taken up for consideration.

Heard on IA No.1466/2019, which is an application under Section 389(1) of CrPC for suspension of sentence and grant of bail.

The appellant has been convicted under Section 307 of IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment of five years with fine of Rs.5,000/- with default imprisonment.

By drawing attention of this Court to the evidence of Dr.Rajesh Sudh (PW1), it is submitted by the counsel for the appellant that even if the injury is grievous in nature, it would not be sufficient to make out an offence punishable under Section 307 of IPC. He further submitted that although the injured had suffered a blood clot in his brain and he was required to undergo left frontal craniotomy operation for removal of blood clot, but in absence of any fracture, it cannot be said that the offence would fall within the purview of Section 307 of IPC.

Considered the submissions made by the counsel for the appellant.

Section 307 of IPC reads 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 herein-before 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.''

Thus, for making out an offence under Section 307 of IPC, it is not necessary that until and unless an injury which dangerous to life is caused to the victim, no offence under Section 307 of IPC would be made out. If a simple hurt is also caused with an intention or knowledge to cause death of the victim, then the said act is sufficient to punish the accused for an offence under Section 307 of IPC.

In the present case, the allegations against the present appellant are that he had given a lathi blow on the head of the victim. Head is, undisputedly, a vital part of the body and any injury to the said part of the body may result in death of the victim. The injury caused to the victim by the appellant, had resulted in Acute Extradural Hemotoma Left Fronto-Parietal area.

The Supreme Court in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Harjeet Singh and another, passed on 19th  February, 2019 in Criminal Appeal No. 1190 of 2009 has held as under:-

5.6 Section 307 uses the term "hurt" which has been explained in Section 319, I.P.C.; and not "grievous hurt" within the meaning of Section 320 I.P.C. If a person causes hurt with the intention or knowledge that he may cause death, it would attract Section 307. This Court in R. Prakash v. State of Karnataka, held that :

"...The first blow was on a vital part, that is on the temporal region. Even though other blows were on nonvital parts, that does not take away the rigor of Section 307 IPC....... It is sufficient to justify a conviction under Section 307 if there is present  (2004) 9 SCC 27 15 an intent coupled with some overt act in execution thereof.

It is not essential that bodily injury capable of causing death should have been inflicted. Although the nature of injury actually caused may often give considerable assistance in coming to a finding as to the intention of the accused, such intention may also be deduced from other circumstances, and may even, in some cases, be ascertained without any reference at all to actual wounds. The Sections makes a distinction between the act of the accused and its result, if any. The Court has to see whether the act, irrespective of its result, was done with the intention or knowledge and under circumstances mentioned in the Section."

(emphasis supplied)

If the assailant acts with the intention or knowledge that such action might cause death, and hurt is caused, then the provisions of Section 307 I.P.C. would be applicable. There is no requirement for the injury to be on a "vital part" of the body, merely causing 'hurt' is sufficient to attract S. 307 I.P.C. This Court in Jage Ram v. State of Haryana held that:

"12. For the purpose of conviction under Section 307 IPC, prosecution  State of Madhya Pradesh v. Mohan & Ors, (2013) 14 SCC 116 (2015) 11 SCC 366 16 has to establish (i) the intention to commit murder and (ii) the act done by the accused. The burden is on the prosecution that 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."

(emphasis supplied)

This Court in the recent decision of State of M.P. v. Kanha @ Omprakash held that:

"The above judgements of this Court lead us to the conclusion that proof of grievous or life threatening hurt is not a sine qua non for the offence under Section 307 of the Penal Code. The intention of the accused can be ascertained from the actual injury, if any, as well as from surrounding circumstances. Among other things, the nature of the weapon used and the  Criminal Appeal No. 1589/2018, decided on 04.02.2019.  severity of the blows inflicted can be considered to infer intent."

(emphasis supplied)

5.7 In view of the abovementioned findings, it is evident that the ingredients of Section 307 have been made out, as the intention of the Accused /Respondent No. 1 can be ascertained clearly from his conduct, and the circumstances surrounding the offence.

Thus, it is clear that the allegations made against the appellant do prima facie make out an offence under Section 307 of IPC. Under these circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that no case is made out for suspension of sentence and grant of bail.

Accordingly, IA No. 1466 of 2019 is hereby rejected.