A single deadly-weapon blow aimed at a vital body part can establish attempt to murder under Section 307 IPC.

On 13 March 1990, an altercation took place near the complainant’s jhuggi concerning the alleged construction of multiple jhuggies and local political rivalry.

The prosecution alleged that the respondents, armed with a sword, knife and lathis, assaulted Rahat Ali, Shahid Ali and other persons.

Digamber allegedly aimed a sword blow at Rahat Ali’s head, which Rahat Ali warded off with his right hand, suffering an incised injury and fracture.

Tikka Ram allegedly attempted to inflict a knife blow on Mahesh’s abdomen; Mahesh moved to protect himself and sustained an injury on his leg.

The respondents were charged under Sections 307/149 IPC, and Digamber was additionally charged under Section 27 of the Arms Act.

The Trial Court acquitted all the accused on 10 March 2000, principally relying on hostile independent witnesses, alleged material contradictions, and the possibility of false implication arising from political rivalry.

During the appeal, respondents Sawan Kumar, Om Parkash and Hukum Singh died, and the appeal abated against them.

Whether the Trial Court erred in disbelieving the injured witnesses and in acquitting Tikka Ram and Digamber despite the ocular and medical evidence implicating them in the assault?

Whether the acts attributed to Tikka Ram and Digamber disclosed the requisite intention or knowledge for an offence under Section 307 IPC, notwithstanding that the injuries were not inflicted on the intended vital parts and were not fatal?

Whether the recovery or non-recovery of the alleged weapons affected the prosecution case?

Whether, after recording conviction, the respondents should be sentenced to imprisonment, considering their age, previous conduct, period already undergone and subsequent settlement with the complainant?

The Court applied the principle that an appellate court should exercise caution before interfering with an acquittal, but may do so where the Trial Court has ignored material evidence or reached perverse conclusions.

It relied on the settled rule that the testimony of an injured witness carries enhanced evidentiary value because the witness’s presence at the scene is ordinarily established by the injury itself; such testimony should not be discarded absent compelling reasons, particularly where corroborated by medical evidence, as stated in Akhtar v. State of Uttaranchal, (2009) 13 SCC 722, and State of M.P. v. Mansingh, (2003) 10 SCC 414.

A hostile witness’s testimony is not rendered wholly inadmissible, and the reliable and corroborated portions may still be relied upon.

Under Section 307 IPC, the prosecution must prove an intention or knowledge of the kind contemplated by Section 300 IPC together with an overt act towards the commission of murder; intention may be inferred from the weapon used, the manner and force of the assault, the body part targeted, the number of blows and surrounding circumstances, and the actual injury is not determinative.

Non-recovery or failure to connect a weapon scientifically is not fatal where reliable eyewitness evidence independently establishes guilt.

For sentencing, the Court applied the reformative theory of punishment, including the principle that rehabilitation may be preferred over retribution where the offender has reformed and does not present a continuing threat, relying on Mohammad Giasuddin v. State of Andhra Pradesh, (1977) 3 SCC 287.

The Court found the evidence of Rahat Ali, Shahid Ali, Mahesh and Satish Kumar sufficient to establish the respondents’ presence, armed participation and individual acts.

Rahat Ali’s testimony specifically identified Digamber as the assailant who struck at his head with a sword; the injury to his hand was consistent with his account that he warded off the blow.

Shahid Ali’s testimony materially corroborated this version and attributed the knife assault on Mahesh to Tikka Ram.

Mahesh’s evidence and his MLC, which recorded a simple sharp-edged injury, independently corroborated Tikka Ram’s role; the fact that the blow landed on the leg rather than the abdomen was explained by Mahesh’s attempt to protect himself.

The evidence of Satish Kumar further corroborated the collective assault, while the credible portion of hostile witness Leela Dhar’s testimony was consistent with the medical evidence showing his injury.

The Trial Court’s reliance on inconsistencies concerning the number of blows and the precise manner of assault was held unjustified because those discrepancies did not undermine the core prosecution case.

The Court held that the sword attack was directed at Rahat Ali’s head and Tikka Ram’s knife attack was aimed at Mahesh’s abdomen—both vital parts—so the fact that the blows were deflected or caused non-fatal injuries did not negate the requisite intention under Section 307 IPC.

Although the recovered sword was not scientifically linked to the injury, the eyewitness evidence independently proved the assault, making the recovery inconsequential.

The respondents’ participation was treated as a concerted assault attracting Section 34 IPC.

Their guilt was proved beyond reasonable doubt, and they were held liable under Sections 307/325/324/34 IPC.

Considering that the incident was over three decades old, the respondents’ age, absence of prior criminal antecedents or subsequent criminal conduct, period of incarceration exceeding two years, reformation, and amicable settlement with the complainant, the Court sentenced each respondent to the period already undergone, together with a fine of ₹20,000, with four weeks to deposit the fine; in default, each was directed to undergo six months’ rigorous imprisonment.

The appeal was accordingly disposed of, and the appeal against the deceased respondents stood abated.