In Luta Yadav vs. The State of Bihar (2026), Justice Purnedu Singh of Patna High Court delivered a 14-page long judgment dated April 22, 2026, wherein, he concluded:"....The nature of the incident, the surrounding circumstances and the medical evidence indicating only simple injuries do not establish the requisite intention or knowledge to cause death so as to attract the provisions of Section 307 IPC. Rather, the materials on record demonstrate that the act of the appellant falls within the ambit of voluntarily causing hurt by a dangerous weapon. Thus, this Court is of the considered opinion that the offence under Section 307 IPC is not made out and the learned trial court has rightly appreciated the evidence in convicting the appellant under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code and also keeping in mind that the injury reports of both the injured persons are found to be simple incised injuries, caused by a sharp cutting weapon."
Justice Singh added:" 24. Accordingly, this Court finds that the impugned judgment of conviction dated 30.03.2012 passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court-II, Jamui in Sessions Trial No. 377 of 2007 (arising out of Sono P.S. Case No. 93 of 2006, G.R. No. 1311/2006 dated 05.10.2006, whereby, the appellant has been convicted under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code, does not warrant interference so far as the finding of conviction is concerned."
The judgment reads:....so far as the sentence is concerned, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and the period already undergone by the appellant, the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for two years is modified and reduced to the period already undergone. To that extent, the appeal stands allowed. It is directed that if the appellant has already undergone the modified sentence, he shall be set at liberty forthwith, unless required in connection with any other case. The appellant is discharged from the liabilities of his bail bonds, if any. 26. Accordingly, the present appeal stands partly allowed."
The appeal was filed under Section 374(2) and 389(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure challenging the judgment of conviction dated March 30, 2012 passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court-II, Jamui in a Sessions Trial of 2007 (arising out of Sono P.S. Case of 2006, whereby and whereunder, the appellant was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code and has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years.
Sections 307 of IPC is 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].
Section 324 of IPC reads:"Voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons or means.—Whoever, except in the case provided for by section 334, voluntarily causes hurt by means of any instrument for shooting, stabbing or cutting, or any instrument which, used as weapon of offence, is likely to cause death, or by means of fire or any heated substance, or by means of any poison or any corrosive substance, or by means of any explosive substance or by means of any substance which it is deleterious to the human body to inhale, to swallow, or to receive into the blood, or by means of any animal, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.”
In absence of any corroboration of oral evidence of the other prosecution interested and injured witness, whose evidence itself reflects the existence of a land dispute between the parties, suggesting possibility of exaggeration. The medical evidence shows that the injuries are simple in nature, not supporting the allegation of intention to commit murder, moreover, the informant has not been examined, there is no independent witness, and there is unexplained delay in lodging the FIR, all of which cumulatively cast serious doubt on the prosecution version and clearly demonstrate absence of intention to cause death, rendering the charge under Section 307 IPC unsustainable.
Justice Singh relief on the judgment passed by the Supreme Court in case of Sivamani (Supra).
The background of the occurrence was that the calf of the appellant was found grazing the crop of the informant which was objected by the informant and the on account of a trivial issue it escalated into a sudden quarrel between the parties without any premeditation or prior meeting of minds of the appellant.
No comments:
Post a Comment