The division judge bench of the Jharkhand High Court held that the basic ingredients of Section 307 of the IPC are that there should be an intention or knowledge that if the act caused death, the accused will be guilty of murder.
HC Bench further added that, "Anyone of the component i.e. either “intention” or “knowledge” is sufficient to convict the accused. This intention and knowledge have to be gathered from the circumstances of each and every case. There cannot be any straightjacket formula".
Brief facts
The factual matrix of the case is that the father of the informant went to take a bath behind his house at the well. Then, five persons started abusing the father and also ran to beat him. Thereafter, in order to save himself, he ran to take shelter in the house of one Kalimuddin. The aforesaid person chased him to the house of Kalimuddin and started assaulting him, upon which his father started raising alarm by screaming. On hearing the scream, the brother of the informant ran to save his father and the accused persons started beating his brother and he also got injured. Thereafter, the FIR was registered and the matter was committed to the court of the session where charges were framed under Sections 148, 323, 324, 341, 452, 307, and 504 read with Section 149 of the IPC. The trial court convicted the appellants were convicted under Sections 148, 323, 324, 341, 452, 307 & 504 of the IPC read with Section 149 of the IPC. Aggrieved by this, the present criminal appeal is filed.
Contentions of the Appellant
The Appellants submitted that it was a case of free fight and the appellants could not have been convicted under Section 307 of the IPC. It was furthermore submitted that the prosecution failed to prove the intention or knowledge. In the absence of “knowledge” or “intention”, no conviction can be sustained under Section 307 of the IPC.
Contentions of the State
The State submitted that from the report of the doctor, it is clear that the injuries were grievous in nature and were on the vital part of the body i.e. head. It was furthermore submitted that the victim was chased by the appellants and at that time they were carrying axes which clearly suggests that there was an intention to commit murder, thus, Section 307 of the IPC has correctly been applied in this case.
Observations of the court
The Hon’ble Court observed that the present case is supported by the testimony of an eyewitness. Therefore, it is not necessary to prove the motive.
The court furthermore observed that section 307 of the IPC requires that there be knowledge or intention that the accused would be guilty of murder if the act resulted in death. To find the accused guilty, any element that is, either "intention" or "knowledge" is sufficient. This intention and knowledge have to be gathered from the circumstances of each and every case. There cannot be any straightjacket formula. In the instant case, the act of chasing and assaulting him with a deadly weapon that too by an axe on his head, clearly suggests that the intention of these appellants was to commit murder.
Based on these considerations, the court was of the opinion that the prosecution was able to prove the guilt of these appellants beyond all reasonable doubt, and the appellants were rightly convicted under Section 307 / 149 of the IPC.
The decision of the court
With the above direction, the court dismissed the criminal appeal.
Case Title: Sahabuddin Ansari V. The State of Jharkhand
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ananda Sen, and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Gautam Kumar Choudhary
Case No.: Criminal Appeal (D.B.) No.686 of 2016
Advocate for the Appellant: Ms. Vani Kumari, Advocate.
Advocates for the State: Ms. Lily Sahay, A.P.P., Mr. Ranjan Kr. Singh, Advocate
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com:
Picture Source :
