The State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Harjeet Singh

State of Madhya Pradesh …Appellant

Versus

Harjeet Singh & Anr. …Respondents

JUDGMENT

INDU MALHOTRA, J.

1. The present Criminal Appeal has been filed by the State

of Madhya Pradesh against the judgment and order dated

03.01.2006 passed by the Gwalior Bench of the Madhya

Pradesh High Court, in Criminal Appeal No. 657/1998.

The Criminal Appeal was filed by the Respondents

against their conviction under Section 307 of the Indian

Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as “Section 307”). The

1 High Court reduced the conviction of the Respondents

from Section 307 to Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code

(hereinafter referred to as “Section 324”).

2. The facts of the case, briefly stated, are as under:

2.1 The case of the Complainant – Sukhdev, as

recorded in the F.I.R., is that on 12.11.1997 the

Complainant­Sukhdev along with his brothers –

Balveer Yadav and Deshraj Yadav, had gone to

the District Court, Ashok Nagar to attend the

hearing of their case against Accused

/Respondent No. 1 – Harjeet Singh. After the

hearing, at around noon, the Complainant –

Sukhdev and his brothers crossed the road, and

were standing in front of the Jail, when Ramji Lal

– Accused /Respondent No. 2 alongwith an

unidentified assailant called Sardar caught hold

of Balveer Yadav and Deshraj Yadav. The Accused

/Respondent No. 1 – Harjeet Singh grabbed the

Complainant – Sukhdev, and stabbed him several

times with a knife, inflicting blows on the chest,

scapula, back, and hips.

2

Accused /Respondent Nos. 1 and 2, alongwith

Sardar ran away from the spot. The Complainant

– Sukhdev further stated that he would be able to

identify Harjeet Singh, and the two assailants

once he sees them.

2.2 Immediately after the assault on 12.11.1997, the

Complainant – Sukhdev was admitted to the Civil

Hospital, Ashok Nagar for treatment. 2.3 The medical examination of the Complainant –

Sukhdev was conducted by Dr. M. Bhagat –

P.W.6 at the Civil Hospital, Ashok Nagar, which

recorded the following injuries :

(i) Stab Wound – 3.5 x 1 cm – deep in the chest

cavity, over the left side of the chest.

(ii) Spindle shaped incised wound – 3 x 2 cm –

muscle deep, present on the upper region of

the right buttocks.

(iii) Stab Wound – 2 x 1 cm – over sub­scapula

region, left side. Bleeding was present.

(iv) Stab Wound – 1 x 1 cm – over illeal region of

hip, left side. Bleeding was present.

3

The medical report further stated that the

injuries were caused by a sharp­edged, pointed

object.

2.4 The Complainant – Sukhdev was referred to the

District Hospital, Guna wherein X­Ray of his

chest region was conducted by P.W. 8 – Dr.

Raghuvanshi. The Report states that there was

“haziness in lungs, left side of chest, present due

to trauma of chest”.

Dr. Raghuvanshi – P.W. 8 stated in his

deposition that the lungs of the Complainant –

Sukhdev suffered injury, which resulted in blood

seeping in the lungs, leading to haziness in the X­

Ray image.

2.5 On 24.11.1997, the Accused /Respondent Nos. 1

and 2 were arrested by the Police. The weapon of

offence i.e. the knife allegedly used by Accused

/Respondent No. 1 was recovered from the

bushes next to the bridge, on the statement given

by Accused /Respondent No. 1.

4 2.6 The Spot Map of the crime scene was prepared,

samples of blood­stained soil, and ordinary soil,

were recovered from the scene of the crime. 2.7 The Accused /Respondent No. 1 was charged

under Section 307, while Accused /Respondent

No. 2 was charged under Section 307 read with

Section 34 of the I.P.C.

2.8 The case was registered as Case No. 10/98 before

the First Addl. Sessions Judge, Ashok Nagar,

Guna District, Madhya Pradesh (Sessions Court). 2.9 The Sessions Court vide Judgment dated

30.11.1998, found Accused /Respondent Nos. 1

and 2 guilty of the offence of ‘attempt to murder’.

The findings of the Sessions Court were as

follows:

i. The Complainant – Sukhdev, and his brothers

– Deshraj Yadav and Balveer Yadav who were

eye­witnesses of the crime, and were present at

the scene of occurrence, and were examined by

the Court as P.W.s 2, 4, and 5 respectively.

Their evidence was held to be reliable, and was

corroborated by the examination of P.W. 3 – an

independent witness who was an Advocate.

5 P.W. 3 appeared before the Court, and deposed

that on 12.11.1997 he heard a commotion

outside the Court. On reaching the spot, he

found the Complainant – Sukhdev (P.W. 2)

lying in a pool of blood. On further inquiry, he

was told that the Accused /Respondent No. 1 – Harjeet Singh had stabbed the Complainant –

Sukhdev (P.W. 2) multiple times. ii. The medical evidence was held to be sufficient

to prove that the injuries inflicted by

Accused /Respondent No. 1 upon the

Complainant – Sukhdev (P.W. 2) could be fatal. iii. With respect to Accused /Respondent No. 2 –

Ramji Lal, the F.I.R. stated that the

Accused /Respondent No. 2 along with an

unidentified Sardar held the brothers of the

Complainant (P.W.s 4 and 5), while the

Accused /Respondent No. 1 stabbed the

Complainant – Sukhdev (P.W. 2) multiple

times.

iv. During the trial, the Complainant – Sukhdev

(P.W. 2) deposed that Accused /Respondent

No. 2 – Ramji Lal grabbed him when

6 Accused /Respondent No. 1 – Harjeet Singh

stabbed him multiple times.

v. The Sessions Court held the prosecution had

proved the case beyond reasonable doubt. It was held that the Accused /Respondent

No. 2 would be equally guilty. The common

intention of Accused /Respondent No. 2 was

proved by the assistance provided by him to

Accused /Respondent No. 1, in committing the

offence.

vi. The Sessions Court convicted the Accused

/Respondent No. 1 under Section 307,

sentencing him to 5 years R.I. along with a

Fine of Rs. 1000/­.

Accused /Respondent No. 2 was convicted

under Section 307 read with Section 34 I.P.C.

and sentenced to 5 years R.I. along with a fine

of Rs. 1000/­.

2.10 Both the Accused /Respondents filed a common

appeal to challenge their conviction by the judgment

dated 30.11.1998 before the Madhya Pradesh High

Court being Criminal Appeal No. 657/1998. 2.11 The Madhya Pradesh High Court vide Impugned

Judgment dated 03.01.2006 partly allowed the Appeal

7 filed by the Accused /Respondents. It was held that

the Complainant – Sukhdev (P.W. 2) had nowhere

stated in his deposition/evidence that the intention of

the Accused /Respondents was to commit murder.

The High Court held that the Complainant –

Sukhdev (P.W. 2) suffered four injuries. One of the

injuries was on the left side of the chest. The depth of

this injury was upto the cavity over the left side of the

chest, but the lung was not affected. The other three

injuries sustained by the Complainant – Sukhdev, are

on the back, and the hips. The Accused /Respondents

having an intention to commit murder would never

cause injuries over such “unimportant” parts of the

body.

It was also noted that the knife by which the

injuries were allegedly inflicted had a blade of five

fingers which could not be more than four inches.

With regard to the liability of the Accused

/Respondent No. 2 – Ramji Lal, the High Court held

that there appears to be lack of consistency in the

statements of the Complainant – Sukhdev and his two

brothers who were eye­witnesses :

8

a. The first version of the Complainant – Sukhdev

(P.W. 2) which has been written in the Dehati

Nalsi, is that the Accused /Respondent No. 2 –

Ramji Lal, and one unknown Sardar both

caught hold of his two brothers. It is not

mentioned in this document that Accused

/Respondent No. 2 – Ramji Lal or the other

unknown Sardar, caught hold of him at the

time of the incident. Conversely, in paragraph 2

of his statement, the Complainant – Sukhdev

has stated that he was held by Accused

/Respondent No. 2 – Ramji Lal at the time of

the incident, and in paragraph 5 he has stated

that after sustaining the injuries of the knife,

Accused /Respondent No. 2 caught hold of his

brother Deshraj (P.W. 4).

b. On the other hand, Deshraj Yadav (P.W. 4) –

the first brother of the Complainant – Sukhdev,

has stated that he was being held by one

unknown Sardar and not by Accused

/Respondent No. 2.

9 c. Balveer Yadav (P.W. 5) – the second brother of

the Complainant – Sukhdev, has stated that he

was being held by Accused /Respondent No. 2 –

Ramji Lal and his brother was held by one

unknown Sardar.

The High Court found that there was no

consistency in the deposition of P.Ws 2, 4, and 5

read with the F.I.R. Considering these

circumstances, it was held that there could be no

presumption that Accused /Respondent No. 2 –

Ramji Lal had committed any act having a

common intention with the Accused /Respondent

No. 1 – Harjeet Singh, in causing the injuries to

the Complainant – Sukhdev (P.W. 2).

The mere fact that Accused /Respondent

No. 2 had accompanied Accused /Respondent No.

1 cannot raise the presumption of having

common intention.

It was further held that it was not justifiable

to conclude that the Accused /Respondents had

any intention to commit murder, or cause such

injury which could have been deemed as

10 sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of

nature. At most, the act of causing the injuries

could be held punishable under Section 324,

I.P.C. as punishment for voluntarily causing

simple hurt.

The High Court converted the conviction of

Accused /Respondent No. 1 from Section 307 to

Section 324 I.P.C. and reduced the sentence to

one year R.I. and a Fine of Rs. 1,000. The period

already undergone would be adjusted in the

sentence awarded to him.

Accused /Respondent No. 2 was acquitted and

his conviction from the charge of Section 307 was

set­aside.

3. The State filed the present Special Leave Petition, against

the Judgment and Order of the Madhya Pradesh High

Court dated 03.01.2006. Special leave to appeal was

granted vide Order dated 08.07.2009.

4. We have heard learned Counsel for both the parties,

considered the submissions, and perused the evidence

record.

5. FINDINGS AND ANALYSIS 5.1 In the present case, a perusal of the facts and the

record clearly indicate that the prosecution has

11 proved beyond reasonable doubt that Accused

/Respondent No. 1 – Harjeet Singh had inflicted

four injuries, on the Complainant by using a

knife.

The oral testimonies of Deshraj Yadav (P.W.

4) and Balveer Yadav (P.W. 5) – the brothers of

the Complainant – Sukhdev who were eye

witnesses, stood corroborated by the medical

evidence.

5.2 The prosecution also examined an independent

witness – Advocate (P.W. 3), who had come to the

Court, and after hearing the commotion, reached

the site of occurrence, where he found the

Complainant – Sukhdev lying in a pool of blood

along with his brothers – P.W.s 4 and 5. The

independent witness – Advocate (P.W. 3) deposed

that on enquiring further about the matter, he

was informed by P.W.s 4 and 5 – the brothers of

the complainant – Sukhdev, that Accused

/Respondent No. 1 – Harjeet Singh had attacked

and stabbed the Complainant.

12 5.3 Dr. Raghuvanshi – the Radiologist (P.W. 8) has

stated in his deposition that the injury caused to

the Complainant ­ Sukhdev in the chest had

resulted in blood seeping into the lungs. The

Medical Report records that the first stab wound

was inflicted on the chest of the Complainant,

which injured his lung, and caused bleeding.

Hence, the finding of the High Court that the stab

wound on the chest remained upto the depth of

the cavity over left side of the chest and the lungs

were not affected, is factually incorrect, and

contrary to the medical record.

5.4 The Accused /Respondent No. 1 inflicted other

stab wounds on the scapula, which were bleeding

even at the time when the Complainant –

Sukhdev (P.W. 2) was examined at the Hospital.

There was also a stab wound present on the

upper region of the right buttock, and another

one over the illeal region of the left hip which was

bleeding at the time of the medical examination.

13 The injuries inflicted on the Complainant –

Sukhdev (P.W. 2) have been corroborated by the

medical evidence on the basis of the medical

reports and the depositions of Dr. Bhagat (P.W. 6)

and Dr. Raghuvanshi (P.W. 8).

Dr. Raghuvanshi (P.W. 8) has stated that

the blood seeping in the left lung of the

Complainant – Sukhdev (P.W. 2), was due to the

injury sustained on the chest. Such an injury

could not be considered to be an injury on an

“unimportant part” of the body.

The findings of the High Court that the

injuries inflicted were on “unimportant parts” of

the Complainant’s body, is erroneous. 5.5 The act of stabbing a person with a sharp knife,

which is a dangerous weapon, near his vital

organs, would ordinarily lead to the death of the

victim.

The weapon of offence was a 4­inch long

knife which is a dangerous weapon. The

Accused /Respondent No. 1 had assaulted the

Complainant with the said knife, and inflicted

14 multiple injuries on his chest, scapula, back, and

buttocks. The multiple blows inflicted by the

Accused /Respondent No. 1 would prove the

intention of causing bodily injury likely to cause

the death of the victim. Stabbing a person with a

knife, near his vital organs would in most

circumstances lead to the death of the victim,

thereby falling squarely within the meaning of

Section 307.

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,1 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

1 (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.2

This Court in Jage Ram v. State of Haryana3

held that:

“12. For the purpose of conviction under Section 307 IPC, prosecution 2 State of Madhya Pradesh v. Mohan & Ors, (2013) 14 SCC 116 3 (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 @ Omprakash4 held that:

“The above judgements of this Court lead us to the conclusion that proof of grievous or life­threatening 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

4 Criminal Appeal No. 1589/2018, decided on 04.02.2019.

17 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.

5.8 In the Impugned Judgment, the High Court

incorrectly held that the Prosecution has been

unable to prove that the Accused /Respondent

No. 1 had the intention to commit murder of the

Complainant. The motive of assault by the

Accused /Respondent No. 1 on the Complainant

–Sukhdev (P.W. 2) was clearly established by the

Prosecution, since there was an existing dispute

which was the subject matter of a court case. 5.9 It is evident from the evidence adduced before the

Court, and the circumstances surrounding the

case, that the prosecution has been able to prove

the case against Accused /Respondent No. 1

beyond reasonable doubt. We find that the

18 prosecution has successfully proved that the

Accused /Respondent No. 1 – Harjeet Singh had

attempted to murder the Complainant – Sukhdeo

and the requirements of Section 307 are made

out from the ocular evidence which are

corroborated by the medical evidence. 5.10 In view of the above­mentioned discussion, the

High Court was in error in reducing the sentence

of Accused /Respondent No. 1 – Harjeet Singh

from Section 307 I.P.C. to Section 324 I.P.C., and

sentencing him to 1 year R.I. along with Fine of

Rs. 1,000.

6. The present Criminal Appeal is partially allowed. The

judgment of the High Court qua Accused /Respondent

No. 1, is set­aside, and the sentence awarded to him by

the Sessions Judge vide Judgment dated 30.11.1998 is

restored. The Accused /Respondent No. 1 is directed to

undergo the remainder of the 5 year Sentence awarded

by the Sessions Court, and surrender before the

Sessions Court, Ashok Nagar, Guna, M.P. within 2

weeks from the date of this Judgment.

19

7. In so far as the case against Accused /Respondent No. 2

– Ramji Lal is concerned; the prosecution has not been

able to prove beyond reasonable doubt the charge under

Section 307 r. w. Section 34 I.P.C. The High Court has

rightly held that there is lack of consistency in the

deposition of the Prosecution witnesses with respect to

the role of the Accused /Respondent No. 2 – Ramji Lal.

We affirm the judgment of the High Court qua

Accused No. 2, and confirm the Order of acquittal

passed in his favour on 03.01.2006.

The Criminal Appeal along with all pending

Applications, if any, are disposed of in the above

terms.

Ordered accordingly.

…….........................J. (L. NAGESWARA RAO)

…….........................J. (INDU MALHOTRA)

New Delhi, February 19, 2019

20