Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2
PETITIONER:
SANJAY KUMAR AND ANOTHER
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
STATE OF M.P.
DATE OF JUDGMENT15/02/1993
BENCH:
AHMADI, A.M. (J)
BENCH:
AHMADI, A.M. (J)
MOHAN, S. (J)
CITATION:
1994 SCC Supl. (1) 502
ACT:
HEADNOTE:
JUDGMENT:
ORDER
1. Special leave granted.
2. We have heard learned counsel for the appellants as
well as the State of Madhya Pradesh. We have also before us
the learned counsel for the original complainant. The trial
court had acquitted the appellants but the High Court
convicted them under Section 307 IPC and sentenced them to
rigorous imprisonment for three years. The learned counsel
for the appellants rightly pointed out that all the six
incised wounds were not more than 1/2 inch in size and were
skin deep and, therefore, the High Court was not right in
attributing an intention to cause death. The High Court
came to the conclusion that having regard to the fact that a
sharp cutting instrument was used and certain injuries were
caused on the chest portion of the complainant-PW 2, the
intention of the assailant was clearly to commit murder and,
therefore, the offence fell within the ambit of Section 307
IPC. We are afraid we cannot accept this approach of the
High Court. The circumstances under which the incident
occurred do not permit such an inference. The quarrel took
place suddenly. The complainant too had a criminal history.
When the complainant objected to the language used by the
appellants the latter reacted and these injuries were
caused. There was no motive whatsoever. There could be no
intention to kill. In order to bring the case within the
ambit of Section 307 IPC, it must be shown that the accused
acted with such intention or knowledge and under such
circumstances that if he by that act caused death, he would
be guilty of murder. To justify a conviction under this
provision an intention or knowledge to constitute murder
must exist, it is a different matter that the act fell short
of that offence. The injuries caused are only skin deep and
having regard to the size of the injuries it would not be
permissible to infer that the assault was launched with such
intent. Besides there is no evidence to show that any X-Ray
was taken, though advised, and, if yes, that the X-Ray
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2
revealed any serious injury. Taking an overall view of the
matter, we are of the opinion that at best even if we accept
the evidence of prosecution witnesses viz., PWs 2, 4 and 5
as has been done by the High Court, the case would fall
within the scope of Section 324 IPC. Since the parties who
are neighbours have expressed a desire to compound the
matter and since the learned counsel for the complainant who
is present before us has also stated that her client has
desired that permission to compound the matter may be
granted to ensure lasting peace, we see no difficulty in
granting the permission to the parties to compound the
matter. An affidavit in that behalf has already been filed
and the same is on record. We accept the same and treat the
matter as compounded. In view thereof the conviction and
sentence are set aside and the appellants will stand
acquitted as the matter has been compounded with the
permission of the Court. The appeal will stand disposed of
accordingly.
504