Section 307 IPC Conviction Altered to Section 324 IPC Absent Proof of Life-Threatening Injuries

On June 25, 2007, the appellant and co-accused allegedly assaulted the complainant, Chitrakant (PW-8), with a knife at Hotel Downtown.

The motive was linked to the complainant’s romantic involvement with the appellant’s sister.

Following an investigation, the appellant was charged under Section 307 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

On May 13, 2008, the 2nd Additional Session Judge, Bilaspur, acquitted the co-accused but convicted the appellant under Section 307 of the IPC, sentencing him to seven years of rigorous imprisonment.

The appellant appealed, contending that the medical evidence failed to prove that the injuries sustained by the complainant were grievous or life-threatening.

1. Whether the conviction under Section 307 of the IPC is sustainable in the absence of medical evidence classifying the injuries as grievous or dangerous to life.

2. Whether the circumstances of the case warrant an alteration of the conviction to Section 324 of the IPC and a reduction of the sentence to the period already undergone.

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 Supreme Court precedent in Sivamani and another v. State represented by Inspector of Police (2023 SCC Online SC 1581), which held that while a bodily injury capable of causing death is not a prerequisite for Section 307, the court must infer the accused's intent from the nature of the weapon, the severity of blows, and surrounding circumstances.

The court also noted procedural requirements under Section 481 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023.

The Court found that the prosecution successfully proved the act of assault through the consistent testimonies of the complainant (PW-8) and independent witnesses (PW-5 and PW-10), who confirmed the appellant used a knife.

However, the medical evidence provided by Dr. S. M. Haq (PW-1) and Dr. D. K. Sao (PW-11) was insufficient to support a Section 307 conviction, as both doctors admitted during cross-examination that they did not opine that the injuries were "grievous in nature or dangerous to life".

Applying the Sivamani doctrine, the Court determined that since the prosecution failed to prove intent or knowledge of causing death through the severity of the injuries or surrounding circumstances, the conviction for "attempt to murder" was improper.

Instead, the evidence established that the appellant voluntarily caused hurt using a dangerous weapon, justifying an alteration of the conviction to Section 324 IPC.

Regarding the sentence, the Court observed that the incident occurred in 2007, the appeal had been pending since 2008, and the appellant had already remained in jail for more than two years.

Consequently, the Court reduced the sentence to the period already undergone by the appellant.

The appellant was directed to furnish a personal bond of Rs. 25,000/- pursuant to Section 481 of the BNSS, 2023, to remain effective for six months.