Use Of Lethal Weapon Sufficient To Constitute Offence U/S 307 IPC If Attempt To Cause Injury Is Made With Intention To Murder: Allahabad HC

The Allahabad High Court has observed that the mere use of a lethal weapon is sufficient to invoke the provisions of Section 307 and that it is not necessary to constitute the offence that the attack should result in an injury.

"An attempt is itself sufficient if there is requisite intention. An intention to murder can be gathered from circumstances other than the existence or nature of the injury," the bench of Justice Surendra Singh-I held.

With this, the bench upheld the conviction of accused-Kamal Singh in connection with a 32 year old attempt to murder case. The Court, however, reduced the period of sentence awarded to him by Additional Sessions Judge, Mathura in 1992, from three years to two years rigorous imprisonment without modifying the fine imposed on him.

The case in brief

The prosecution story in brief is that informant Shiv Singh submitted a written report on July 21, 1990 to the effect that he is a witness in the case relating to murder of one Sohan Singh, on account of which residents of his village accused Ratan singh, Kamal Singh (appellant) and Bharat Singh have an enmity with him and they have threatened him that if he gives evidence against them, he will be killed.

It was further stated by him that in the intervening night of 20/21.07.1990 at about 12:00 pm, he was having conversation with Rohan Singh, when the accused came on the terrace and threatened him that he should desist from giving evidence against them otherwise he will repent later on.

To this, the informant old them that he will give evidence of the facts which he has seen. On jearing this, accused Ratan Singh exhorted his sons Kamal Singh and Bharat Singh to kill the informant by firing and on his exhortation, appellant Kamal Singh and Bharat Singh with the intention of causing death, fired two gun shots on him.

It was further told that the pellets from the bullet hit near the eyes of the informant Shiv Singh and on the chest of Rohan Singh. On alarm being raised by the informant and Rohan Singh, villagers reached at the place of occurrence and that is when the Accused ran away from the spot.

Following the investigation and completion of trial, the Court convicted appellant Kamal Singh under Sections 307 & 506 IPC and sentenced him to three years rigorous imprisonment. Challenging the order and judgment, he moved to the High Court,

High Court's observations

At the outset, the Court noted that to justify a conviction under Section 307 IPC, it is not essential that bodily injury capable of causing death should have been inflicted. The Court added that although the nature of injury actually caused may often give considerable assistance in coming to a finding as to the intention of the accused, however, 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.

"It is not necessary that the injury actually caused to the victim of the assault should be sufficient under ordinary circumstances to cause the death of the person assaulted. 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 section. An attempt in order to be criminal need not be the penultimate act. It is sufficient in law, if there is present an intent coupled with some over act in execution thereof," the Court observed.

Against this backdrop, when the Court examined the facts of the case and found that the evidence of PW-1 Shiv Singh and PW-2 Rohan Singh regarding the date, time and place of occurrence, participation of accused, the manner of their causing injury to them and the lodging of FIR and medical examination of injured was corroborated by the evidence of PW-3 Ram Hans and PW-4 Soran and hence, the Court found their testimonies to be cogent and reliable.

Now, regarding the nature of injury and whether it comes under the purview of Section 307 IPC, the Court observed thus:

"A country made pistol is a lethal weapon. Firearm injury caused by country-made pistol may be fatal in nature. Appellant-accused Kamal Singh and co-accused Bharat Singh on the exhortation of their father Ratan Singh to kill Shiv Singh and Rohan Singh fired on them with country-made pistol causing them injury one on their forehead and chest, respectively. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, weapon used in causing injury and the part of body on which injury was caused, it can be concluded that appellant-accused Kamal Singh with co-accused Bharat Singh fired on injured Shiv Singh and Rohan Singh with the intention to cause them to death."

Conseuqently, the Court concluded that from the analysis of the oral and documentary evidence on record, it was clear that the prosecution had been able to prove, beyond reasonable doubt that on the date, time and place of occurrence the accused-appellant Kamal Singh with co-accused with the intention to cause death, fired on Shiv Singh and Rohan Singh causing fatal injuries to them and with this, the prosecution had proved beyond reasonable doubt charge under Section 307 I.P.C. against the accused-appellant and therefore, the Trial Court rightly convicted the appellant-accused under that section.

However, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, especially that more than 32 years have passed since the offence was committed and prosecution has not produced any criminal history of the appellant-accused, the period of sentence awarded to appellant-accused was reduced from three years to two years rigorous imprisonment.

Appearances

Counsel for Appellant: Mahesh Kumar Kuntal

Counsel for Respondent: G.A.

Case title - Kamal Singh vs. State of U.P. [CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 1496 of 1995]

Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 152

Click Here To Read/Download Order