Conviction Modified to Section 324 IPC For Simple Injury Lacking Intention to Kill Under Section 307

The incident occurred on November 25, 1984, in Village Summerpur, Mainpuri.

The first informant (P.W. 2) alleged that while his nephew Kaushal was weeding a field, the appellants (Desh Raj and Bahadur) and their father (Kali Charan) began cutting moonj grass on the boundary.

Upon Kaushal’s objection, Desh Raj allegedly fired a pistol (missing him), and Bahadur stabbed Kaushal in the back with a knife.

The Trial Court acquitted Kali Charan but convicted Desh Raj and Bahadur under Section 307 read with Section 34 of the IPC, sentencing them to four years of rigorous imprisonment.

The injured died approximately 13-14 months after the incident due to unrelated illness, and thus was never examined as a witness.

1. Whether the statement of the deceased recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. can be treated as a dying declaration under Section 32 of the Evidence Act when the cause of death is unrelated to the injuries sustained.

2. Whether the act of the appellants, resulting in a single simple injury during a sudden altercation, justifies a conviction for "attempt to murder" under Section 307 IPC or a lesser offense.

3. Whether the appellants are entitled to the benefit of the Probation of Offenders Act given the long pendency of the appeal and lack of criminal history.

The court primarily applied Section 307 of the IPC regarding attempt to murder and Section 324 of the IPC regarding voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons.

Section 32 of the Indian Evidence Act, which requires a causal link between the injury and death for a statement to qualify as a dying declaration.

Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, and Section 360 of the Cr.P.C., which allow the release of offenders on probation for good conduct in lieu of immediate imprisonment based on the nature of the offense and the character of the offender.

The Court found the ocular testimony of P.W. 2 and P.W. 5 reliable, corroborated by the medical evidence of P.W. 1, which confirmed an incised wound caused by a sharp weapon.

The Court rejected the use of the deceased's Section 161 Cr.P.C. statement as a dying declaration because the prosecution failed to prove that the injuries caused the death; rather, evidence suggested he died of illness a year later.

The Court observed that the attack was not premeditated but occurred at the "spur of the moment" over a boundary dispute.

Since only one "simple" injury was inflicted, no firearm was actually discharged according to the I.O., and the appellants did not attempt a second strike, the Court reasoned there was no "intention to kill" required for Section 307 IPC.

Consequently, the offense was downgraded to Section 324 IPC.

Considering the incident occurred 42 years prior, the appeal was pending for 39 years, and the appellants were now elderly with no criminal antecedents, the Court declined to send them to prison and granted them the benefit of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, directing their release on personal bonds of Rs. 20,000/- with an undertaking to maintain good behavior for one year.