Conviction under Section 307 IPC modified to Section 326 IPC absent clear intention to cause death.

The Appellant (A1) was convicted by the Trial Court under Sections 307 and 326 read with Section 34 of the IPC for an incident occurring on March 23, 2013

The prosecution alleged that A1 and A2 (who was later declared a proclaimed offender) assaulted PW12 over a monetary dispute involving his deceased son

When PW12’s daughter (PW8) and son-in-law (PW9) intervened, A1 slashed their faces with a sharp object, causing permanent disfiguration

A1 contended that the case was a false implication due to a loan dispute and pointed to a settlement between the victims and A2 in the interim

1. Whether there is any infirmity in the Trial Court's judgment of conviction under Section 307 and 326 IPC calling for appellate interference

2. Whether the act of the accused, committed without a clear intent to cause death but resulting in permanent facial disfigurement, squarely falls under Section 307 or Section 326 IPC

The court applied Section 307 IPC (Attempt to Murder), requiring the concurrence of mens rea and actus reus where death is a probable consequence

Section 326 IPC (Voluntarily causing grievous hurt by dangerous weapons), specifically identifying "permanent disfiguration of the face" as grievous hurt under Clause Sixthly of Section 320 IPC

It relied on Abdul Sayeed v. State of M.P. regarding the high evidentiary value of injured witnesses

Rakesh v. State of U.P. for the principle that non-recovery of the weapon is not fatal to conviction

Section 222 of the Cr.P.C., which permits conviction for a minor cognate offence even if not specifically charged

The court found the testimony of the injured witnesses (PW8 and PW9) to be reliable, noting that injuries provide an inbuilt guarantee of their presence at the scene

The court observed that the incident was sparked by PW12 challenging the accused ("ab maar ke dikhao"), suggesting a lack of premeditated intent to murder

While the injuries were "grievous" due to facial disfigurement under Section 320, they did not meet the high threshold of "intent or knowledge of causing death" required for Section 307

The court dismissed the defense's reliance on the settlement with A2, noting that A2 had likely misled the court in separate proceedings and that the payment of compensation actually corroborated the occurrence of the assault

Applying Section 222 Cr.P.C., the court determined it could convict for the minor cognate offence of Section 326 IPC

The appeal was partly allowed. The sentence was reduced from seven years to two years of rigorous imprisonment, maintaining the fine of ₹10,000