Conviction Modified from Section 307 to 324 IPC Due to Absence of Grievous Injury or Intent to Kill

During the pendency of the appeal, Appellant No. 1 (Dwarika Yadav) died, and the proceedings abated against him

The Trial Court convicted the appellants under Section 307 (Attempt to Murder) read with Section 34 of the IPC, sentencing them to 7 years of Rigorous Imprisonment

On November 17, 2010, the appellants stopped the complainants, Santu and Shatruhan Yadav, near Village Borid and assaulted them with a knife, stones, and a club

The appellants challenged the conviction on the grounds that the injuries were simple, not life-threatening, and that the Trial Court failed to appreciate contradictions in witness statements

1. Whether the nature of injuries sustained by the complainants and the circumstances of the assault were sufficient to sustain a conviction under Section 307 of the IPC

2. Whether the sentence should be reduced to the period already undergone given the lapse of time and the nature of the offence

The Court primarily applied Section 307 (Attempt to Murder) and Section 324 (Voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons or means) of the IPC

It relied on the precedent established in Sivamani v. State represented by Inspector of Police (CRA No. 3619/2023), which held that the intention of the accused must be inferred from the nature of the weapon, the severity of blows, and the actual injuries; a conviction under Section 307 is unsustainable if the injuries are simple and there is no evidence of repeated/severe blows intended to cause death

the Medical Officer (PW-5) claimed the injuries could have been dangerous without timely treatment

the prosecution failed to provide documentary evidence showing that the victims were hospitalized for more than 20 days or sustained "grievous" injuries as defined by law

Applying the Sivamani principle, the Court noted the absence of repeated or severe blows aimed at vital organs that would clearly indicate an intention to kill

the Court found that the act fell under the ambit of voluntarily causing hurt with a dangerous weapon (Section 324) rather than a premeditated attempt to murder under Section 307

Given that the incident occurred in 2010, the appellants had already served approximately 1 year and 11 months in jail, and they are now approximately 50 years old, the Court reduced their sentence to the period already undergone

The fine remained maintained, and the appellants were directed to furnish a personal bond under Section 481 of the BNSS 2023