Allahabad High Court
Pargan Singh And Others vs State on 4 September, 2025
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:156532
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 2136 of 1985
Pargan Singh And Others
.....Appellant(s)
Versus
State
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Appellant(s)
:
Anil Raghav, Brijesh Sahai, S.P.S. Raghav, Shanshak Shekhar
Counsel for Respondent(s)
:
A.G.A., V.Singh
A.F.R.
Judgement Reserved on 19.08.2025
Judgement Delivered on 04.09.2025
HON'BLE ANISH KUMAR GUPTA, J. 1. Heard Sri Kamal Krishna, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Prakhar Saran Srivastava, learned counsel appearing on behalf of appellant nos. 1 & 4, Sri K.P.S. Yadav, learned counsel appearing on behalf of appellant nos. 5, 6 & 9, Sri Vijay Shantam, Amicus Curiae and Sri Satendra Nath Tiwari, learned A.G.A. for the State-Respondent.
2. The instant criminal appeal has been filed by the appellants being aggrieved by the judgement and order dated 16.08.1985 whereby the Appellant No.1, Pargan Singh, Appellant no.2, Ram Murat Singh @ Sheo Murat Singh, Appellant No.3, Doctor Singh, Appellant No.4, Mangala Singh, Appellant No.5, Raj Nath Yadava, Appellant No.6, Sheshnath, Appellant No.7, Naresh, Appellant No.8, Ram Briksh, Appellant No.9, Param Hans, Appellant No.10, Amar Deo, Appellant No.11, Sobran, Appellant No.12, Bhorick and Appellant No.13, Bhukhal were convicted for the offences under Section 307 read with Section 149 I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo ten years' rigorous imprisonment. The Appellant No. 13, Bhukal was also convicted for the offence under Section 147 I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment. The Appellant No.1, Pargan Singh, Appellant No.2, Ram Murat Singh alias Shio Murat Singh, Appellant No.3, Doctor Singh, Appellant No.4, Mangala Singh, Appellant No.5, Raj Nath Yadava, Appellant No. 6, Shesh Nath, Appellant No. 7, Naresh, Appellant No.8, Ram Briksh, Appellant No.9, Param Hans, Appellant No.10, Amar Deo, Appellant No.11, Sobran and Appellant No.12, Bhorick were also convicted for the offences under Section 148 I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo two years' rigorous imprisonment. The Appellant No.14, Bhadra Narain Singh, who was found guilty for the offence under Section 30 of the Arms Act, was sentenced to undergo two months' imprisonment.
3. During the pendency of the appeal, Appellants No. 3, 7, 8, 10, 11, 12, 13 and 14 had died and the appeal on their behalf was abated. The Appellant No. 2, Ram Murat alias Shio Murat Singh has also died. An application on behalf of the legal representatives (LRs) of the Appellant No.2 was moved under Section 394 Cr.P.C., which was allowed by this Court vide order dated 19.08.2025 and his LRs were permitted to contest the conviction of the Appellant No.2 and the said LRs were represented by the Amicus Curiae appointed by this Court.
4. Briefly stated prosecution story is that the informant as well as the appellants herein were residents of Village- Barhan, Police Station- Dhina, District Varanasi. The informant, Ram Saneshi Yadav was the owner in possession of a chak in the North of the village. Adjoining the chak of Ram Saneshi there was an Abadi land. As per the allegations made by the prosecution on 28.02.1982, at about 3:00 P.M, the Appellant No.12, Bhukhal and Appellant No.13, Bhorick respectively, were digging the foundation for raising construction of their house. The informant and others stopped Bhukhal and his son Bhorick from raising the construction and asked them to let there be a proper measurement before the construction of the house. Upon this, said Bhukhal and Bhorick stopped their work and went to the village, and thereafter, Lallan Singh, Pargan Singh, Ram Murat Singh armed with guns, Doctor Singh, Mangala Singh, Rajnath, Sheshnath, Naresh Yadava and Ram Briksh, armed with Ballams (spears), and Param Hans, Amar Deo, Sobran and Bhorick armed Gandasaas and Bhukhal with lathi, having formed a common object, reached there and abused them and told that the construction of the house would be raised. Upon which, Chandrama, Bandhan Yadava, Ram Sakal, Ram Awadh, Banwari, Ram Lacchan and Ram Saneshi Yadava prohibited them from abusing as well as from raising the construction of the house. At this obstruction, the accused persons started firing and assaulting them.
5. Then, first of all, Lallan Singh fired from his gun, causing a firearm injury to Ram Lachhan and Ram Awadh. Bandhan, Chandrama, Banwari and Ram Sakal were attacked by ballam and gandasas by the accused persons and they sustained the injuries by ballam and gandasas. After sustaining the injuries, the persons on the complainant's side rushed towards Lallan Singh and the gun of Lallan was broken and in the process, Lallan Singh also sustained injuries. This incident was seen by Rama Awadh and Chhangur, etc.
6. After the incident, the informant, Ram Saneshi Yadav along with injured persons, Chandrama, Banwari, Ram Awadh, Ram Sakal, Ram Lacchan and Bandhan, reached the police station and lodged a report at 05:10 P.M., on the same date. Thereupon, the F.I.R. was registered for the offences under Sections 307/149, 147, and 148 of the I.P.C.
7. All the six injured persons were referred to the S.S.P.G. Hospital, Varanasi, for their medical examination. Dr. M.S. Sharma examined Banwari at 9:15 P.M. and observed the following injuries on his body:
"1. Lacerated wound 2 cm. x 1/2 cm. x scalp deep mid of forahead 5 cm. from root of nose.
2. Abraded contusion 2 cm. x 2 cm. on left side fore-head 2 cm. above left eye brow.
3. abraded contusion 2 cm. x 2 cm., 1 cm. above injury no. 1.
4. Lacerated wound 2 cm. x 1 cm. x scalp deep 10 cm, above right ear.
5. Contusion 14 cm. x 2 cm on the right side chest 2 cm. away from right nipple.
6. Contused swelling 4 cm. x 3 cm. on pack of right wrist, x-ray was advised.
7. Contusion 10 cm. x 2cm, on right scapular region.
8. Abrasion 2 cm. x 4 cm. on front and upper part of left lag.
All the injuries were reported to be caused by blunt object and friction except injury no.6 which was kept under observation."
8. On the same day at about 09.55 P.M. Dr. M.S. Sharma examined Ram Sakal and noted the following injuries on this person:-
"1. Incised wound 1/2 cm. x 4 cm muscle deep on back of right elbow joint with swelling around it in an area of 1 cm. x 3 cm. on back of albow joint.
The injury was reported to be caused by sharp edged object. It was kept under observation."
9. On the same day Dr. M.S. Sharma, examined Ram Awadh, son of Ram Vriksh and noted the following injuries on this person:-
"1. Gun-shot wound 1/4 cm. 2 of 1/4 cm. x depth not protted on right side chest 5 cm. , medialright nipple.
This injury was reported to be caused by firearm and kept under observation."
10. On the same day at about 8.10 P.M. Dr. T.B.Rai examined Bandhan and noted the following injuries on his person:-
"1. Incised wound 8 cm. x 5 cm. x bone deep on right side face 7 cm. below right eye.
2. Incised wound 10 cm. x 3 cm. x depth not probed on front of right neck.
3. Incised wound 5 cm. x 1 cm. x muscle deep on the right forearm 12 cm. below right elbow.
4. Abrasion 2 ??. x 1 cm., on the outer aspect of right thigh in upper portion.
5. Abrasion 2 cm. x 1 cm, on the right side of the head 9 cm, above right ear.
Injuries nos. 1, 2 and 3 were reported to be edged by sharp-edged weapon and rest by friction."
11. On the same day Dr. T.B.Rai examined Chandrama at 08.55 P.M. and noted the following injuries:-
"1. Incised wound 2 cm. x 5cm. x depth not probed on the left side of chest.
2. Incised panetrating wound .5 cm. x .5 cm. x depth not prbed on the set sim of the chest 6 cm. below injury no, 1.
3. Abrasion 1 cm. x 1 cm, on the inner side of the right fore- arm upper part.
4. Abrasion 1/4 cm. x 1/ cm. on top of the head.
Injuries nos. 1 and 2 were reported to be caused by sharp edged weapon and the rest by friction.
On the same day at about 08:42 P.M. Dr. T. B. Rai examined Ram Lachchan and would not note the injuries of Ram Lachhan because of his serious condition. He referred injured Ram Lachchan because of his serious condition. He referred injured Ram Lachchan to surgeon. Dr. T.B Rai had informed the police station that the injury of Ram Lachhan could not be noted due to very low general condition. "
12. Thereafter, the investigation was conducted by Ram Prasad Arya, the then S.O. of P.S.- Dhina and the Investigation Officer recorded the statement of the informant. On 01.03.1982, he reached at the spot and thereafter, the statements of witness Chhangur Yadava (PW3), Ram Saneshi (PW1) were recorded and a site-plan was prepared and also bloodstains and plain soil from the spot. Memos were prepared. He also found a broken gun at some distance, which was allegedly used by Lallan Singh, the deceased. The gun was seized. He also found the used cartridge in the right barrel of the said gun. On investigation, he found that this gun belonged to Bhadra Narain Singh, the accused. He seized the cartridge and broken gun. Therefore, he interrogated other witnesses, namely Shyamlal and Munnu Yadava and arrested the Appellant No14, namely Bhadra Narain Singh under Section 30 of the Arms Act. He also recorded the statements of various other witnesses and the accused persons were arrested. Some of the accused persons have surrendered before the court. Thereafter, the charge-sheet was filed by the IO against the accused persons for the offences under Sections 307/149, 147 and 148 I.P.C. However, against Appellant No. 14, Bhadra Narain Singh, the charge-sheet was filed for the offence under Section 30 of the Arms Act as well as under Sections 307/149, 147 and 148 I.P.C. A cross-case was also lodged by accused Bhadra Narain Singh at 5:45 P.M. on the same day i.e., 28.02.1982, stating therein that there was a long-standing feud between the Bhadhan Yadava and the family of Bhadra Narain Singh and on 28.02.1982, at 3:00 P.M., Bhadra Narain Singh and his nephew, deceased Lallan Singh, were going to see on their field on their chak. Lallan Singh had a licensed double barrel gun and at the same time, Ram Sakal, Bandhan armed with ballam, Banwari, Ram Awadh s/o Bhrigu, Ram Awadh s/o Ram Krit, Chandrama and Ram Lacchan armed with lathis reached there. Chandrika and Ramadhar also reached and exhorted to kill Lallan Singh. On their exhortation, the aforesaid persons attacked on Lallan Singh and started beating him by ballam and lathis. Lallan Singh also made a fire by which the accused persons also sustained firearm injuries. Lallan Singh fell down after sustaining injuries of ballam and lathis and his gun was also broken and Lallan Singh succumbed to his injuries on the spot.
13. The post-mortem of the dead body of Lallan Singh was conducted by Dr. Sidh Gopal, who noted the following ante-mortem injuries on the body of Lallan Singh, the deceased:
"1. Lacerated wound 5 cm. x 1 cm. x scalp deep middle of head 7 cm, above nosal bone.
2. Lacerated wound 5 cm. x 1 cm. x scalp deep left side head 6 cm, above left ear.
5. Lacerated wound 8 cm. x 1 cm x bone deep middle of fore-head.
4. Stab wound with sharp margins 5 cm. x 2 cm. x chest cavity on the left side front of chest 3 cm, below clevicle. Direction backward, middle and downward.
5. Multiple contusion on the left arm outer side.
6. Incised wound 1 cm. x 1 cm. x muscle deep on the left elbow back.
7. Incised wound 1 cm x .5 cm. x skin deep 1 cm above injury no. 6.
In the opinion of the doctor injuries nos. 4, 6 and 7 were possibly caused by ballam and injuries no 1,2,3 and 5 were caused by lathi."
14. After submission of the charge-sheet in the instant case the case was committed to the Sessions Court for trial. The Sessions Court framed the charges as aforesaid against the appellants herein, who denied the charges and claimed trial.
15. In support of its case, the prosecution has examined the PW1 (Ram Saneshi), PW2 (Ram Sakal) and PW3 (Chhangur) as the witnesses of fact, PW4 (Head Moharrir Rangila) as the formal witness of registration of the F.I.R. and PW6 (Ram Prasad Arya) as Investigation Officer of the case. Dr. M.S. Sharma was examined as PW5 and Dr. T.B. Rai was examined as PW7, who supported the medical examination report of the injured persons.
16. In defence, the accused persons have examined Ram Murat alias Janardan as DW1 and Dr. Siddh Gopal as DW2, who conducted the post-mortem of Lallan Singh, the deceased. After completion of the trial, the trial court has convicted and sentenced all the appellants herein as aforesaid.
17. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants submits that out of the three facts witnesses, PW1, the informant, did not appear to be an eye-witness after close scrutiny of his deposition as he has failed to depose which accused person has assaulted which injured person with which weapon. Learned Senior Counsel further submits that PW3, Chhangur is an interested and partial witness as he was having the enmical relations with the accused persons. Learned Senior Counsel further submits that the PW2, Ram Saneshi, is an injured witness, however, his statement was recorded by the Investigation Officer after 18 days of the registration of the F.I.R. However, no explanation for the same has been provided by the IO for such a delayed examination of PW2. Thus, relying upon the judgement of the Apex Court in Shahid Khan v. State of Rajasthan, (2016) 4 SCC 96, learned Senior Counsel submits that since there is no explanation with regard non examining the PW2 by the Investigation Officer for 18 days, his testimony cannot be relied upon for the prosecution and conviction of the appellants herein, cannot be sustained.
18. Relevant observations of the Apex Court in the aforesaid judgement are as under: "20. The statements of PW 25 Mirza Majid Beg and PW 24 Mohamed Shakir were recorded after 3 days of the occurrence. No explanation is forthcoming as to why they were not examined for 3 days. It is also not known as to how the police came to know that these witnesses saw the occurrence. The delay in recording the statements casts a serious doubt about their being eyewitnesses to the occurrence. It may suggest that the investigating officer was deliberately marking time with a view to decide about the shape to be given to the case and the eyewitnesses to be introduced. The circumstances in this case lend such significance to this delay. PW 25 Mirza Majid Beg and PW 24 Mohamed Shakir, in view of their unexplained silence and delayed statement to the police, do not appear to us to be wholly reliable witnesses. There is no corroboration of their evidence from any other independent source either. We find it rather unsafe to rely upon their evidence only to uphold the conviction and sentence of the appellants. The High Court has failed to advert to the contentions raised by the appellants and reappreciate the evidence thereby resulting in miscarriage of justice. In our opinion, the case against the appellants has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt."
19. It is further submitted that by learned Senior Counsel for the appellants that there are serious contradictions between the depositions of PW1 and PW2 regarding assault on Lallan Singh, the deceased, who were actively in self-defence while causing the injuries to the injured persons. PW6, Chhangur, had previous longstanding enmity as the civil disputes between the accused persons and this witness Chhangur is pending since, 1960.
20. Learned Senior Counsel further submits that if the injuries were not dangerous to life, the offence under Section 307 I.P.C. is not made out. As per the medical opinion none of the injuries of the injured persons were found dangerous to life, therefore, the offence under Section 307 I.P.C. is not made out against the appellants herein. In support of his case, learned Senior Counsel has relied upon the judgement of the Coordinate Bench of this Court in Nandan v. State of U.P., 2010 SCC OnLine All 5221, which reads as under:
"19. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellants that no offence under section 307 IPC is made out seems to have some substance. In the case of Rekha Mandal and others v. State of Bihar (1967 CAR 108), the Apex Court has held that section 307 IPC requires that the act must be done with such intention or knowledge or under such circumstances that if death be caused by that act, the offence of murder will emerge. In that case the fact that the injuries were not dangerous to life was also taken into consideration for holding that no offence under section 307 IPC was made out."
21. It is further submitted by learned Senior Counsel that the prosecution has failed to put the specific question with regard to the injured persons acted in self-defence. Therefore, the said story of injured persons acted in self-defence cannot be relied upon in support of his submission. Learned Senior Counsel has further relied upon the judgement of the Apex Court in Maheshwar Tigga v. State of Jharkhand, (2020) 10 SCC 108. Learned Senior Counsel for the appellants has further submitted that the accused persons have acted in self defence, as the deceased Lallan Singh was killed by the injured persons. The spot of incident with regard to self-defence by the accused persons has not been considered by the trial court.
22. In support of his submission, learned Senior Counsel has relied upon para '19' of the judgement of the Apex Court in Gottipulla Venkatasiva Subbrayanam v. State of A.P., (1970) 1 SCC 235 which reads as under:
"19. The fact that the plea of self-defence was not raised by Accused 10 and that he had on the contrary pleaded alibi does not, in our view, preclude the Court from giving to him the benefit of the right of private defence, if, on proper appraisal of the evidence and other relevant material on the record, the Court concludes that the circumstances in which he found himself at the relevant time gave him the right to use his gun in exercise of this right. When there is evidence proving that a person accused of killing or injuring another acted in the exercise of the right of private defence the Court would not be justified in ignoring that evidence and convicting the accused merely because the latter has set-up a defence of alibi and set forth a plea different from the right of private defence. The analogy of estoppel or of the technical rules of civil pleadings is, in cases like the present, inappropriate and the Courts are expected to administer the law of private defence in a practical way with reasonable liberality so as to effectuate its underlying object, bearing in mind that the essential basic character of this right is preventive and not retributive. The approach of the High Court in this matter seems to us to be erroneous. We accordingly allow the appeal and acquit the appellants."
23. It is further submitted by learned Senior Counsel that according to the case of the prosecution the incident took place near the place where the accused persons were raising the construction and, as per the prosecution, seven accused persons received injuries from spear but no bloodstains were found near the place of construction. It is further submitted that six persons on the prosecution side had sustained the incised wounds and they were bleeding and they were chasing Lallan Singh from the point X to C, which is around 150 steps ahead.
24. It is further submitted by learned Senior Counsel that the prosecution has failed to explain the injuries caused to the deceased Lallan Singh. The injuries to said Lallan Singh were duly proved in the instant case by Dr. Sidh Gopal. The F.I.R. is totally silent about the injuries caused to Lallan Singh, by whom or which weapon. Thus, since the prosecution has failed to explain the injuries sustained by the deceased on the side of the accused persons, therefore, it should be presumed that the prosecution is not presenting the true story of the case and there is some deliberate concealment on the part of the prosecution. Therefore, the conviction of the appellants herein is unsustainable.
25. In support of his submission, learned Senior Counsel has relied upon the judgements of the Apex Court in Mohar Rai vs. State of Bihar : (1968) 3 SCR 525, State of Gujarat v. Bai Fatima, (1975) 2 SCC 7; Lakshmi Singh v. State of Bihar, (1976) 4 SCC 394 and the recent judgment of the Apex Court in Nand Lal and Others vs. State of Chhattisgarh : (2023) 10 SCC 470.
26. Sri K.P.S. Yadav, learned counsel for the Appellant No. 5, 6 & 9, also adopts the arguments advanced by learned Senior Counsel on behalf of Appellant No.1. Sri Vijay Shantam, learned Amicus Curiae, who is appearing on behalf of the LRs of Appellant No.2, who was a government employee, had also supported the arguments advanced by learned Senior Counsel.
27. Per contra, learned A.G.A. submits that in the cross-case lodged by Bhadra Narain Singh, on behalf of the accused persons, the accused persons therein were acquitted and the appeals filed against the acquittal were also dismissed by this Court. Learned A.G.A. further submits that the prosecution has properly explained and narrated the entire story in true sequence. Initially, Bhaukhal and Bhorick were digging the foundation, which was objected by the informant's side. Thereupon, both of them went away and after some time, the accused persons armed with firearms, spears, lathis and gandasas, came on the spot and assaulted the injured persons. First of all, it was the deceased, Lallan Singh, who had fired at Ram Awadh and Ram Lachhan. Ram Awadh sustained the firearm injury on his chest and Ram Lachhan sustained the injury on left side of his face. Thereafter, all the accused persons has assaulted the injured persons and in self-defense, so that the said Lallan, who was armed with firearm, may not kill other persons. The injured persons have acted in self-defense and broken his gun and assaulted him, as has been categorically deposed by all three fact witnesses in the instant case. Thus, there was a clear and categorical explanation with regard to the injuries sustained by the deceased, Lallan Singh, however, it has been further explained by the witnesses that none of the persons from the prosecution side were carrying any weapon. They have snatched the weapons from the accused persons and thereafter assaulted the deceased Lallan.
28. Learned A.G.A. further submits that from the injury report, which are duly approved, the injuries sustained by Banwari are on the vital parts. Ram Awadh has sustained firearm injury on the chest that is also a vital part. Bandhan has sustained incised wounds on right face and front of right neck. Chandrama has also sustained two incised wounds on his chest. Thus, from the nature of injuries sustained, which are as noted hereinabove, are on the vital parts of the body of the injured persons. Therefore, there was clear and categorical intention on the accused persons to kill the injured persons. Therefore, offence under Section 307 I.P.C. is categorically made out. PW1 has categorically stated that Chandrma and Banwari, had assaulted Lallan with a broken sphere.
29. Thus, learned A.G.A. submits that the injury sustained by the deceased Lallan Singh, has been duly explained by the prosecution and the prosecution has acted in self-defence after assault was made by the deceased Lallan Singh and the other accused persons collectively upon the injured persons. It is the case of the prosecution that the accused persons were trying to raise the construction, which was objected by the prosecution side, upon which the assault was made by the accused persons along with deceased Lallan. Thus, the appellants herein were the aggressors of the incident.
30. PW2 in the instant case is an injured witness and he is a most reliable witness in the instant case who has categorically supported the prosecution case in detail and nothing has come forward in his deposition to disbelieve his testimony. His deposition is also corroborated by PW1 and PW3. PW1 himself has stated that he has also assaulted the deceased Lallan along with Chandrama and Banwari. Thus, his presence cannot be doubted. So far as the injuries sustained by the injured persons from the prosecution side are duly proved, there is a sufficient explanation with regard to the injuries sustained by the deceased Lallan. Therefore, the trial court has rightly convicted the accused person, therefore, there is no ground for this Court to interfere with the conviction and sentence awarded to the accused appellants herein. Accordingly, the learned A.G.A. prays for dismissal of the instant criminal appeal filed by the appellants.
31. Having heard the rival submissions so made by learned counsels for the parties, this Court has carefully gone through the record of the case. It is undisputed and sufficiently proved in the instant case that six persons from the prosecution side, namely Banwari, Ram Sakal, Ram Vriksh Ram Awadh, Bandhan and Chandrama had sustained the injuries and most of the injuries sustained by the injured persons were incise wounds and firearm injuries that too on the vital parts of the injured persons.
32. In Karu Marik v. State of Bihar, (2001) 5 SCC 284, the Apex Court has observed as under:
"10. Many a times, the nature of the injury inflicted itself presents a most valuable evidence of what the intention was but that is not the only way of gauging intention. Each case must be examined on its merits. Intention being the state of mind of the offender, no direct evidence as a fact can be produced. It has to be gathered from the available evidence and the surrounding circumstances in considering whether the offence is covered by clause I of Section 300 IPC. As far as clause II of Section 300 is concerned, it is enough if the accused had the intention of causing such bodily injury as he knew to be likely to cause the death of the person to whom the harm is caused. Such intention may be inferred not merely from the actual consequences of his act, but from the act itself also."
33. In State of M.P. v. Imrat, (2008) 11 SCC 523, the Apex Court has observed as under:
11. It is to be noted that the alleged offences are of very serious nature. Section 307 relates to attempt to murder. It reads as follows:
'307. Attempt to murder.?Whoever does any act with such intention or knowledge, and under such circumstances that, if he by that act caused death, he would be guilty of murder, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine; and, if hurt is caused to any person by such act, the offender shall be liable either to imprisonment for life, or to such punishment as is hereinbefore mentioned.'
12. To justify a conviction under this section, 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 section makes a distinction between an act of the accused and its result, if any. Such an act may not be attended by any result so far as the person assaulted is concerned, but still there may be cases in which the culprit would be liable under this section. 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 overt act in execution thereof.
13. It is sufficient to justify a conviction under Section 307 if there is present 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. The section 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. Therefore, an accused charged under Section 307 IPC cannot be acquitted merely because the injuries inflicted on the victim were in the nature of a simple hurt."
This position was highlighted in State of Maharashtra v. Balram Bama Patil [(1983) 2 SCC 28 : 1983 SCC (Cri) 320] , Girija Shankar v. State of U.P. [(2004) 3 SCC 793 : 2004 SCC (Cri) 863] , R. Prakash v. State of Karnataka [(2004) 9 SCC 27 : 2004 SCC (Cri) 1408 : JT (2004) 2 SC 348] and State of M.P. v. Saleem [(2005) 5 SCC 554 : 2005 SCC (Cri) 1329] (SCC pp. 559-60, paras 11-13).
12. "15. In Sarju Prasad v. State of Bihar [AIR 1965 SC 843] it was observed in para 6 that mere fact that the injury actually inflicted by the accused did not cut any vital organ of the victim, is not by itself sufficient to take the act out of the purview of Section 307.
16. Whether there was intention to kill or knowledge that death will be caused is a question of fact and would depend on the facts of a given case. The circumstances that the injury inflicted by the accused was simple or minor will not by itself rule out application of Section 307 IPC. The determinative question is the intention or knowledge, as the case may be, and not the nature of the injury. The basic difference between Sections 333 and 325 IPC is that Section 325 gets attracted where grievous hurt is caused whereas Section 333 gets attracted if such hurt is caused to a public servant.
17. Section 307 deals with two situations so far as the sentence is concerned. Firstly, whoever does any act with such intention or knowledge, and under such circumstances that, if he by that act caused death, he would be guilty of murder, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine; and secondly if hurt is caused to any person by such act the offender shall be liable either to imprisonment for life or to such punishment as indicated in the first part i.e. 10 years. The maximum punishment provided for in Section 333 is imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to 10 years with a liability to pay fine." [Ed. : Quoting from State of M.P. v. Saleem, (2005) 5 SCC 554, p. 560, paras 15-17.] "
13. It is seen that the High Court had arrived at erroneous hypothetical conclusions ignoring the fact that the nature of injuries were grievous and were caused by use of sufficient force by sharp-edged weapons. The injuries were so serious that both the investigating agency and the doctor felt that dying declaration was to be recorded. That being so, the High Court's conclusion that the offence under Section 307 was not made out is clearly indefensible. The order of the High Court is set aside and that of the trial court is restored."
34. In Shoyeb Raja v. State of M.P., 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2624, the Apex Court has observed that minor nature of injuries is not sufficient to not to attract Section 307 I.P.C., which is observed as under:
"10. Section 307 IPC is the charge that the Courts below have concurrently, refused to frame. It reads as under:?
"307. Attempt to murder.?Whoever does any act with such intention or knowledge, and under such circumstances that, if he by that act caused death, he would be guilty of murder, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine; and if hurt is caused to any person by such act, the offender shall be liable either to imprisonment for life, or to such punishment as is hereinbefore mentioned. Attempts by life convicts.? When any person offending under this section is under sentence of imprisonment for life, he may, if hurt is caused, be punished with death."
11. Let us at this stage, consider the law as laid down by this Court in respect of this section, as also that of Section 34 IPC, given that there are a total of eight respondents (accused) before the court.
11.1 In State of Maharashtra v. Kashirao : (2003) 10 SCC 434, the Court identified the essential ingredients for the applicability of the section. The relevant extract is as below:
"The essential ingredients required to be proved in the case of an offence under Section 307 are:
(i) that the death of a human being was attempted;
(ii) that such death was attempted to be caused by, or in consequence of the act of the accused; and
(iii) that such act was done with the intention of causing death; or that it was done with the intention of causing such bodily injury as : (a) the accused knew to be likely to cause death; or (b) was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, or that the accused attempted to cause death by doing an act known to him to be so imminently dangerous that it must in all probability cause (a) death, or (b) such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, the accused having no excuse for incurring the risk of causing such death or injury."
11.2 This Court in Om Prakash v. State of Punjab : 1961 SCC OnLine SC 72, as far back as 1961, observed the constituents of the Section, having referred to various judgments of the Privy Council, as under:
"a person commits an offence under Section 307 when he has an intention to commit murder and, in pursuance of that intention, does an act towards its commission irrespective of the fact whether that act is the penultimate act or not. It is to be clearly understood, however, that the intention to commit the offence of murder means that the person concerned has the intention to do certain act with the necessary intention or knowledge mentioned in Section 300. The intention to commit an offence is different from the intention or knowledge requisite for constituting the act as that offence. The expression "whoever attempts to commit an offence" in Section 511, can only mean "whoever : intends to do a certain act with the intent or knowledge necessary for the commission of that offence". The same is meant by the expression "whoever does an act with such intention or knowledge and under such circumstances that if he, by that act, caused death, he would be guilty of murder" in Section 307. This simply means that the act must be done with the intent or knowledge requisite for the commission of the offence of murder. The expression "by that act" does not mean that the immediate effect of the act committed must be death. Such a result must be the result of that act whether immediately or after a lapse of time."
(Emphasis supplied)
11.3 Hari Mohan Mandal v. State of Jharkhand : (2004) 12 SCC 220 holds that the nature or extent of injury suffered, are irrelevant factors for the conviction under this section, so long as the injury is inflicted with animus. It has been held:
"10. ?To justify a conviction under this section, 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. ?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 overt act in execution thereof.
11. It is sufficient to justify a conviction under Section 307 if there is present 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. If the injury inflicted has been with the avowed object or intention to cause death, the ritual nature, extent or character of the injury or whether such injury is sufficient to actually causing death are really factors which are wholly irrelevant for adjudging the culpability under Section 307 IPC. The section 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. Therefore, it is not correct to acquit an accused of the charge under Section 307 IPC merely because the injuries inflicted on the victim were in the nature of a simple hurt."
(Emphasis supplied)
16. In view of the above discussion, given that the minor nature of injuries is not sufficient reason to not frame a charge under Section 307 IPC, as per the law laid down by this Court, the judgment impugned, passed in Criminal Revision No. 3125 of 2021 dated 23rd November, 2023, is set aside. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. The concerned Trial Court is directed to have the Respondents stand trial for all the offences for which charges have been framed, as also Section 307. The trial shall proceed on its own merits, as per law, uninfluenced by the observations hereinabove which were for the limited purpose of testing the propriety of the impugned order. The same shall be expedited."
35. In State of M.P. v. Mohan, (2013) 14 SCC 116, the Apex Court has observed as under:
"13. The High Court, in our view, while reducing the sentence, has not properly appreciated the scope of Section 307 IPC under which the respondents were found guilty. The relevant portion of Section 307 reads as follows:
?307.Attempt to murder.?Whoever does any act with such intention or knowledge, and under such circumstances that, if he by that act caused death, he would be guilty of murder, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine; and if hurt is caused to any person by such act, the offender shall be liable either to imprisonment for life, or to such punishment as is hereinbefore mentioned.?
14. The High Court was of the opinion that the injuries have not been caused on the vital parts of the body. In order to attract Section 307, the injury need not be on the vital parts of the body. In order to attract Section 307, causing of hurt is sufficient. If anybody does any act with intention or knowledge that by his act he might cause death and hurt is caused, that is sufficient to attract life imprisonment. Section 307 uses the word ?hurt? which has been explained in Section 319 IPC and not ?grievous hurt? within the meaning of Section 320 IPC. Therefore, in order to attract Section 307, the injury need not be on the vital part of the body. A gunshot, as in the present case, may miss the vital part of the body, may result in a lacerated wound, that itself is sufficient to attract Section 307. The High Court is, therefore, in error in reducing the sentence, holding that the injury was not on the vital part of the body. Period undergone by way of sentence also in our view is not commensurate with the guilt established."
36. Thus, from their aforesaid judgments, it is categorically settled law that, for making out offences under Section 307 I.P.C., it is not necessary that the injuries caused to the injured person were sufficient to cause death. Rather, the intention of the person causing the injuries must be considered for the purpose of offences under Section 307 I.P.C. However, the nature of the injuries, the manner in which they were caused, the parts of the body where they were inflicted and the weapons used for the assault are circumstances which would indicate the intention of the assailants.Thus, looking at the nature of injuries and the weapons used, it can be safely concluded that there was clear and categorical intent on the part of the accused persons to kill the injured persons. In view thereof, the offence under Section 307 I.P.C. is apparently made out against the accused persons.
37. So far as the submission of learned Senior Counsel for the appellants that the injuries sustained by the deceased persons have not been explained by the prosecution is concerned, it is relevant to note the deposition of PW1, first of all, Lallan Singh had fired at Ram Awadh and Ram Lacchan. Ram Awadh had sustained the injury on his chest, and thereafter, Lallan Singh had again tried to insert the cartridge into his gun. Thereafter, the persons from the prosecution side ran towards Lallan Singh and assaulted him so that he may not kill persons from the prosecution side. In cross-examination, it has also been categorically stated by PW2 that PW1, Ram Saneshi and Chandrama had assaulted Lallan with lathi and Banwari had assaulted Lallan with a broken spear.
38. Similarly, PW2 has also stated that the accused persons turned towards them and Lallan Singh fired and due to the said fire, Ram Lachhan and Ram Awadh had sustained injuries. Ram Awadh had sustained the injuries on his chest. Ram Lacchan had also sustained injuries and the other accused persons also began to assault them. At the same time, Lallan Singh moved aside and tried again to insert cartridges on his gun, and in the meantime, the spear of one of the accused persons was also broken and in self-defence, from their side also, the assault was made by some persons upon Lallan Singh.
39. PW3, Chhangur has also stated that, first of all, Lallan Singh had fired at Ram Awadh, Ram Lacchan and Banwari, Chandrama and Ram Saneshi, had assaulted deceased Lallan in self-defence. If they they had not killed Lallan, then he could have again fired at them.
40. In view of the aforesaid categorical explanations given by the prosecution side, it can be safely concluded that there is sufficient explanation with regard to the injuries sustained by deceased Lallan during the incident. The manner of injuries caused and the person who caused the injuries to Lallan Singh has also been categorically stated by all the fact witnesses. The submission of learned Senior Counsel that the injury sustained by deceased Lallan Singh is not explained by the prosecution, in the considered opinion of this Court, is unfounded. Therefore, the judgments relied upon by learned Senior Counsel are of no avail to the appellants.
41. Another submission of learned Senior Counsel is that, with regard to the material available on record, regarding the injured persons of the prosecution side have assaulted the deceased Lallan in their self-defence. the same was not put to the accused persons while recording their statements under Section 313 Cr.P.C. From the perusal of 313 Cr.P.C. statements of the accused persons, specifically Question No. 11, of the statement is categorically with regard to the prosecution side acted in self-defence by assaulting Lallan Singh. The said question was specifically put to the accused persons. In view thereof, the said submission of learned Senior Counsel is also unfounded.
42. Another submission made by learned Senior Counsel is that the bloodstains were not found at the place where the foundation was being dug by the accused persons and no bloodstains were recovered from that place rather, the bloodstains were recovered around 150 feet away from the said spot. As per the prosecution case, on the second round, when the accused persons came on the spot and started construction at the place, the same was resisted by the prosecution's side and the injured person.
43. Thereupon, it is the case of the prosecution that the accused persons and the said Lallan Singh started chasing the injured persons, and therefore, first of all, Lallan Singh fired at Ram Awadh and Ram Lacchan Singh. Thereupon, the other accused persons also assaulted them, and in the meantime, when Lallan Singh was trying to insert another cartridge into the gun, some of the injured persons approached Lallan Singh, broke his gun, and then, from a broken spear, Banwari had assaulted Lallan Singh and the informant Ram Saneshi and Chandrama assaulted Lallan Singh with Lathi, due to which he died. Therefore, from the narration of the prosecution's story, it is categorically clear that the incident was not at an static place but the accused were chasing the accused persons, and thereafter, after some distance, they have been assaulted, wherefrom, the Investigation Officer recovered bloodstained soil and clean soil. Therefore, it is not the case of the prosecution at all that the assault was made by the accused persons at the side of digging, but at some distance after chasing the injured persons. The appellants had assaulted them, wherefrom the bloodstained soil was recovered by the IO. Thus, the said submission is also, in the considered opinion of this Court is unfounded.
44. So far as the deposition of PW1 is concerned, it has been argued by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants that PW1 was not a reliable witness, as he was not present on the spot. The said submission is made on the basis of the fact that this witness has failed to explain, which accused had assaulted which injured person and with which weapon. In the instant case, there are 14 accused persons who have been alleged to have assaulted the injured persons. Therefore, it is very difficult for any of the injured persons, when both sides are assaulting in full swing, armed with different weapons, to explain which accused had assaulted which injured person with which weapon. At the initial stage of the assault, it had been categorically stated that it was Lallan who had fired at Ram Awadh and Ram Lacchan. Thereupon, other accused persons collectively started assaulting the injured persons, out of which three of the persons assaulted Lallan Singh, and in the process, he died on the spot. Therefore, merely because this witness is not in a position to explain who were the accused person assaulted which of the injured persons, his testimony cannot be disbelieved. All the three fact witnesses have stood firm on their depositions. Thus, in the considered opinion of this Court, the prosecution has succeeded in proving its case beyond doubt against the appellants herein and from the narration of the prosecution, it has been categorically proven that it were the appellants herein who were the aggressors of the incident, who came on the spot armed with lethal weapons and assaulted the injured persons. In the process, the injured persons, while acting in self-defence also assaulted deceased Lallan, who succumbed to the injuries in the process of assault by both sides.
45. So far as the reliance placed by learned Senior Counsel on the judgment of Shahid Khan (supra) is concerned, with due deference, it is observed that the same is not applicable to the facts of the instant case, because in that case, there was a delay in recording the statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. of the persons, and there was no corroboration of their evidence from any independent source. In those circumstances, the Apex Court held that the prosecution had failed to prove the case against the accused persons beyond a reasonable doubt. However, in the instant case, PW2 Ram Saneshi, whose statement was allegedly recorded 18 days after the registration of the F.I.R, is an injured witness. Immediately after the incident, he was brought to the police station and thereafter he was referred for medical examination on the date of the incident itself. Thus, merely because the Investigation Officer recorded the statements after 18 days is not sufficient to discard his evidence, as his deposition is totally corroborated by the medical examination report, which was sufficiently proved by the doctors who conducted the medical examination of the said witness. Therefore, the observation made by this court in Shahid Khan (supra), in the considered opinion of this court, would not be applicable in this case.
46. In view thereof, this Court does not find any illegality in the conviction of the accused persons. Therefore, the conviction of the appellant, namely Appellant No.1, Pargan Singh, Appellant No.2, Ram Murat @ Sheo Murat, Appellant No.4, Mangala Singh, Appellant No.5, Raj Nath Yadava, Appellant No.6, Shesh Nath, Appellant No.9, Param Hans, are recorded by the trial court is hereby upheld.
47. So far as the sentence of the accused persons are concerned, in the assault made by the persons herein, wherein six persons have sustained injuries, therefore, as per Section 307 of the I.P.C., the sentence upto imprisonment of life can be awarded. However, the trial court has taken very lenient view in awarding the sentence to the appellants only upto ten years' rigorous imprisonment.
48. Since, the appellant no.2 has already died, in view thereof, there is no requirement to pass any order with regard to sentence of appellant no.2.
49. With regard to the remaining appellants, it is noteworthy that the instant criminal appeal is pending since 1985 and since then, more than 40 years have passed, the Appellant No.1, Pargan Singh, was aged about 24 years at the time of recording his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. The Appellant No.9, Param Hans was aged about 35 years at the time of recording his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. The Appellant No.6, Shesh Nath, was aged about 36 years at the time of recording his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. Appellant No. 5, Raj Nath was aged about 40 years. The Applicant No.4, Mangala Singh, was aged about 32 years at the time of recording his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C.
50. Thus, all the aforesaid appellants, namely Appellant No.1, Pargan Singh would be aged about 64 years, Appellant No.4, Mangala Singh, would be aged about 72 years, Appellant No.5, Raj Nath Yadava would be aged about 80 years, Appellant No.6, Shesh Nath would be aged about 76, Appellant No.9, Param Hans would be aged about 75 years at present.
50. In State of M.P. v. Saleem, (2005) 5 SCC 554, the Apex Court has clarified the object of sentencing in the criminal matter as under:-
"8. The object should be to protect society and to deter the criminal in achieving the avowed object of law by imposing appropriate sentence. It is expected that the courts would operate the sentencing system so as to impose such sentence which reflects the conscience of the society and the sentencing process has to be stern where it should be.
9. Imposition of sentence without considering its effect on the social order in many cases may be in reality a futile exercise. The social impact of the crime e.g. where it relates to offences against women, dacoity, kidnapping, misappropriation of public money, treason and other offences involving moral turpitude or moral delinquency which have great impact on social order and public interest, cannot be lost sight of and per se require exemplary treatment. Any liberal attitude by imposing meagre sentences or taking too sympathetic view merely on account of lapse of time in respect of such offences will be resultwise counterproductive in the long run and against societal interest which needs to be cared for and strengthened by a string of deterrence inbuilt in the sentencing system.
10. The court will be failing in its duty if appropriate punishment is not awarded for a crime which has been committed not only against the individual victim but also against the society to which the criminal and victim belong. The punishment to be awarded for a crime must not be irrelevant but it should conform to and be consistent with the atrocity and brutality with which the crime has been perpetrated, the enormity of the crime warranting public abhorrence and it should ?respond to the society's cry for justice against the criminal?.
51. In view of the aforesaid categorical observation of the Apex Court and looking at the nature of the instant case and sentence awarded by the trial court which appears to be reasonable, this Court do not find any good reason to interfere with the sentence awarded to the surviving appellants no. 1, 4, 5, 6 and 9 herein. Therefore, the conviction as well as the sentence of the appellants herein is upheld.
52. The instant criminal appeal is accordingly dismissed. The trial court record be sent back to the trial court. The Appellants No. 1, 4, 5, 6 and 9, are on bail.
53. The concerned trial court is directed to take them into custody to serve out the sentence awarded by the trial court and affirmed by this Court and send a report to this Court within one month.
54. Registrar (Compliance) is directed to send a copy of this order to the trial court concerned forthwith for compliance.
55. This court appreciates the assistance provided by Sri Vijay Shantam, learned Amicus Curiae, who has assisted the Court and for the service rendered by him, an honorarium of Rs. 10,000/- shall be paid to him as per rules.
(Anish Kumar Gupta,J.)
September 4, 2025
Shubham Arya
