Intention Or Knowledge Essential To Attract Section 307 IPC: Gujarat High Court

Background

It was the case of the Prosecution that Accused No. 3, 9 and 10 attacked the Complainant due to a previous grudge about an election. The Complainant received blows on the back and thigh and then all three ran away from the place of offence. They also threatened to kill the Complainant. Thereafter, the Complainant was admitted in the hospital and an FIR was registered at the police station under the aforementioned sections.

During the trial, the Prosecution examined 19 witnesses and presented various documentary evidence to bring home the charge. Per contra, the Respondent-Accused refuted all the charges as false. Accordingly, after examining the evidence and witnesses, the Trial Court acquitted the Respondent-Accused.

The Bench noted that there was discrepancy in the complaint since one of the alleged attackers was handicap from the middle part of the body and could not walk without the help of the stick. Further, there were discrepancies in the statements regarding hospitalisation of the Complainant. For instance, the Complainant deposed that he was in the hospital for 9 days, but during cross-examination, he stated that he was admitted for 11 days. While another witness stated that he was in the hospital for 6 days. Per the Bench, this amounted to material contradiction. The Complainant changed his version of the injuries, as well. The Trial Court had also noted that the investigation was not conducted properly since the sequence of the investigation was not articulated coherently.

Keeping in mind these discrepancies, the Trial Court had rightly acquitted the Accused, the High Court said. It thereafter, ventured on to explain the ingredients of Section 307 thus:

"It is pertinent to note that the prosecution is required to prove the intention or knowledge of the accused persons, however, it is necessary that the prosecution is required to prove the intention or knowledge of the accused persons and it is not necessary that injury capable of causing death should have been inflicted by the accused persons. What is material to attract offense under section 307 of the IPC is the intention or knowledge with which all the acts are done irrespective of its results."

Averring that nothing on the part of the Respondent-Accused was found to show an intention to commit act or attempt to commit murder, the Bench affirmed the decision of the Trial Court. In doing so, the Bench cautioned that as per Ram Kumar vs State of Haryana AIR 1995 SC 280, it was held:

"It is settled law that if the main grounds on which the lower Court has based its order acquitting the accused are reasonable and plausible, and the same cannot entirely and effectively be dislodged or demolished, the High Court should not disturb the order of acquittal."

The Bench further remarked:

"Every case has its own journey towards the truth and it is the Court's role undertake. Truth has to be found on the basis of evidence available before it. There is no room for subjectivity nor the nature of offence affects its performance. We have a hierarchy of courts in dealing with cases. An Appellate Court shall not expect the trial Court to act in a particular way depending upon the sensitivity of the case. Rather it should be appreciated if a trial Court decides a case on its own merits despite its sensitivity."

Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed.

Case Title: STATE OF GUJARAT Versus RATNIYABHAI NEVSINGBHAI RATHVA

Case No.: R/CR.MA/4612/2022

Click Here To Read/Download Order