Section 397 IPC requires individual use of deadly weapons; vicarious liability under Section 149 is inapplicable.

On August 13, 2000, two constables (PW-1 and PW-2) of the Government Railway Police (GRP) intercepted an illicit liquor consignment at the railway departure yard

A group of approximately 10–11 persons, including the appellants, arrived in a Jeep armed with knives and sticks to reclaim the liquor

The group assaulted the constables; PW-2 sustained multiple life-threatening stab wounds to the stomach and chest requiring emergency surgery

PW-1 sustained simple injuries

The accused forcibly took the liquor cartons and fled

The Trial Court convicted the appellants under Sections 148, 307/149, 324/149, and 395/397 of the IPC, sentencing them to seven years of rigorous imprisonment

The appellants challenged the conviction on grounds of misidentification, lack of motive, and medical evidence allegedly contradicting the gravity required for Section 307

1. Whether the conviction under Section 307 (Attempt to Murder) was justified based on the medical evidence and the nature of injuries inflicted on the public servants

2. Whether the appellants can be held vicariously liable under Section 149 for the common object of the unlawful assembly

3. Whether the conviction under Section 397 (Dacoity with use of deadly weapons) is sustainable against all members of the assembly via constructive liability

The Court applied Section 307 IPC (Attempt to Murder), emphasizing that the intention or knowledge of the accused is paramount, regardless of whether the injury is fatal

It relied on Balu Sudam Khalde v. State of Maharashtra regarding the high evidentiary value of injured witnesses

For vicarious liability, it applied Section 149 IPC, noting that membership in an unlawful assembly with a common object suffices for conviction

the Court applied the principle from Ganesan v. State, which establishes that Section 397 creates individual liability for the "offender" who uses a deadly weapon and cannot be applied vicariously through Section 149

The Court upheld the conviction under Section 307 IPC, reasoning that the use of knives on vital parts (stomach/chest) and the medical testimony of PW-16—stating PW-2 would have died without surgery—clearly established the intent to cause death

the Court found the injured witnesses' testimonies (PW-1 and PW-2) consistent and reliable, noting that even if an accused (like Hasnen) was not named in the FIR, specific overt acts were attributed to him during evidence

The Court affirmed the application of Section 149 IPC, finding the appellants were part of an unlawful assembly whose common object was to forcibly recover seized liquor from police custody

Following Ganesan, it held that since the Trial Court failed to specify which individual offender used the deadly weapon during the dacoity, the collective conviction under Section 397 was legally unsustainable, though the base charge of dacoity under Section 395 remained proved

It set aside the conviction under Section 397 IPC, acquitting the appellants of that specific charge as constructive liability does not apply to it

the Court reduced the sentence for Sections 307 and 395 IPC from seven years to four years of rigorous imprisonment, with sentences to run concurrently

The appellants were directed to surrender within two months to serve the remaining sentence