Recently, the Chhattisgarh High Court partly allowed the appeal, altering the conviction of the appellants from Section 307 IPC to Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and reducing the sentence to the period already undergone. The Court found that the prosecution failed to prove the appellants’ intention to commit murder beyond reasonable doubt.
Brief Facts:
The appellants were convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge for offences under Sections 307/34 and 323/34 IPC. They were sentenced to five years' rigorous imprisonment and six months' rigorous imprisonment. The prosecution's case was that on 20.11.2020, due to a longstanding land dispute, the appellants assaulted Devsharan Sahu and Mithun Sahu with a tangia (axe) and a crowbar near Sant Ravidas Bhawan. FIR was lodged, and the injured were medically examined. The medical evidence revealed simple injuries, except for a lacerated wound on Devsharan Sahu's head. The trial court convicted the appellants under Sections 307 and 323 IPC.
Contentions of the Appellants:
The learned counsel for the appellants argued that the trial court failed to appreciate that mere infliction of simple injuries without proving the intention to kill does not attract Section 307 IPC. It was contended that the prosecution failed to establish the appellants’ intent to cause death, and the incident arose from a sudden altercation linked to a land dispute. The counsel also highlighted contradictions in the prosecution's story, particularly regarding the presence of complainant Mithun Sahu at the scene.
Contentions of the Respondent:
The learned State counsel opposed the appeal and submitted that the trial court had rightly appreciated the evidence, and the conviction under Section 307 IPC was proper considering the nature of the assault and the weapons used.
Observations of the Court:
The Court noted that Section 307 IPC requires proof of intention or knowledge to commit murder, and the prosecution must establish these elements through the nature of injuries, weapons used, and surrounding circumstances.
The Court observed that the injuries sustained were simple in nature, except for a lacerated wound, and there was no compelling evidence of intent to cause death. However, the court said that a case cannot be taken out of the purview of Section 307 IPC merely on the basis that the injuries to the victim are found to be simple in nature. Each case has to be decided on its own facts and circumstances. No two cases can be or are in all respects alike. What is the proper inference to be drawn from proved facts and circumstances is a totally different matter.
Decision of the Court:
The Chhattisgarh High Court, partly allowing the appeal, held that the conviction and sentence of the appellants under Section 307 of the IPC is altered to the offence under Section 324 of IPC and they are convicted under Section 323 IPC.
Case Title: Kamta Manhare & Anr. vs. State of Chhattisgarh
Coram: Hon’ble Justice Arvind Kumar Verma
Case No: CRIMINAL APPEAL NO: 1998/2024
Advocate for the Appellants: Mr. N. Naha Roy
Advocate for the Respondent: Mr. Karan Baharani, Panel Lawyer
Picture Source :
