Section 307 conviction cannot stand without proof of intention or knowledge to cause death.

On 5 June 2008, an altercation allegedly occurred between the parties over a pre-existing dispute concerning shares in the property of Baleshwar Mistry. The prosecution alleged that the accused persons, armed with lathis and rods, assaulted the informant Santosh Vishwakarma and his mother Lakhaminia Devi, and that the appellant, Chitranjan Mistry, struck Lakhaminia Devi on the head with a rod.

On the basis of the informant’s written report, Obra P.S. Case No. 73 of 2008 was registered for offences including Sections 148 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code; following investigation, charge-sheet, cognizance, commitment, and framing of charges, the appellant alone was ultimately convicted under Section 307 IPC.

The prosecution examined nine witnesses, including the informant, an injured witness, another injured witness, and the doctor who examined the injured persons; the Investigating Officer was not examined, and several prosecution witnesses were declared hostile.

The trial court convicted the appellant under Section 307 IPC and sentenced him to four years’ rigorous imprisonment, a fine of ₹5,000, and six months’ imprisonment in default of payment of fine.

Whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant possessed the requisite intention or knowledge to commit an offence punishable under Section 307 IPC?

Whether the contradictions between the ocular account and the medical evidence, together with the non-examination of the Investigating Officer, materially undermined the prosecution case?

Whether the appellant’s conviction and sentence under Section 307 IPC could be sustained despite the alleged spontaneous nature of the altercation, the simple nature of the injuries, and the absence of repeated or lethal blows?

The Court applied Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, which requires proof of an act done with the intention or knowledge that, if it caused death, the act would amount to murder.

The prosecution must establish the requisite mens rea beyond reasonable doubt; the mere fact that an injury was caused is not, by itself, sufficient to sustain a conviction under Section 307 IPC.

The Court also applied the general criminal-law principles that material contradictions in prosecution evidence, significant inconsistency between ocular and medical evidence, and investigative omissions causing prejudice to the accused may create reasonable doubt.

No judicial precedent was expressly cited in the judgment.

The Court found material infirmities in the conviction. First, the Investigating Officer was not examined, preventing the defence from effectively confronting witnesses regarding discrepancies in the place and manner of occurrence.

Second, the prosecution witnesses alleged assault with rods or lathis, whereas the doctor found incised wounds, which were ordinarily attributable to sharp-cutting weapons, thereby creating a material inconsistency between the ocular and medical evidence.

Third, the evidence did not demonstrate any premeditated intention or knowledge to cause death. The occurrence appeared to have arisen spontaneously from an existing property dispute, there was no allegation of repeated blows, and the injuries were simple in nature.

In these circumstances, although the evidence might at best indicate the commission of a minor hurt-related offence, it did not establish the essential ingredients of Section 307 IPC beyond reasonable doubt.

The judgment of conviction dated 10 July 2018 and the order of sentence dated 18 July 2018 were set aside insofar as they related to the appellant.

He was acquitted of the Section 307 IPC charge and discharged from the liability of his bail bonds.

The appeal was accordingly allowed, and any pending interlocutory applications were disposed of.