Conviction under Section 307 IPC altered to Section 326 IPC due to lack of murderous intent.

The appellant was convicted by the Trial Court under Section 307 of the IPC for an incident occurring on 06.04.2006

The prosecution alleged that the appellant and one Mithai Bhokta assaulted the victim, Md. Naim Ansari (P.W.-4), with a tangi (axe) due to a dispute over plying a tractor through the accused’s lands

The victim sustained two incised wounds on the scalp and forehead, which were opined as grievous

While the Trial Court acquitted the co-accused Mithai Bhokta, it sentenced the appellant to seven years of rigorous imprisonment

The appellant challenged the conviction, arguing a lack of specific overt acts and the absence of intention to murder

1. Whether the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence suffer from any serious error of law calling for interference.

2. Whether the nature of injuries and the circumstances of the case attract the ingredients of Section 307 (Attempt to Murder) or Section 326 (Voluntarily causing grievous hurt by dangerous weapons) of the IPC.

The court primarily applied Section 307 and Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC)

It relied on the principle established in Hari Singh v. Sukhbir Singh & Ors. (1988) 4 SCC 551, which dictates that for a Section 307 conviction, the court must determine if the act was done with the specific intention or knowledge necessary to constitute murder, gathered from the nature of the weapon, the severity of the blow, and the part of the body affected

The Court observed that while the appellant used a sharp-edged weapon (tangi) on a vital part of the body (head/forehead), there was no evidence that he was prevented from dealing a fatal blow

The Court reasoned that the force used was moderate, intended to "teach a lesson" rather than kill, evidenced by the fact that the victim survived despite being at the mercy of the assailant

Consequently, the Court found that the essential ingredient of "intention to murder" under Section 307 IPC was lacking

However, since the injuries were grievous and caused by a sharp weapon, the Court determined the act squarely fell under Section 326 IPC

The Court further noted that the acquittal of the co-accused did not entitle the appellant to an acquittal, as direct testimony (P.W.-4 and P.W.-5) specifically implicated him

Considering the appellant had already served 1 year and 6 months in custody and that the incident occurred 20 years ago, the Court reduced the sentence to the period already undergone

Additionally, the appellant was ordered to pay Rs. 25,000 as compensation to the victim, failing which the Trial Court was directed to realize the amount

The appeal was disposed of with these modifications