Simple injuries may warrant conversion of Section 307 IPC conviction to Sections 323 and 324 IPC.

On 14 December 2008 at approximately 7:00 a.m., respondent Naem Ansari allegedly went near a pond behind his house, where appellants Tajamul Haque and Ajmer Ansari allegedly assaulted him with a farsa in connection with an existing agricultural land dispute. One appellant allegedly struck him on the head with the sharp edge of the weapon, causing him to fall into the pond, while both appellants allegedly assaulted him with fists and slaps before fleeing. The injured was rescued by family members and villagers and taken for medical treatment.

On the basis of the injured informant’s statement, Bhore P.S. Case No. 208 of 2008 was registered under Sections 341, 323, 324 and 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code. After investigation, a charge-sheet was filed and charges were framed under Sections 341 and 307/34 IPC.

The prosecution examined five witnesses, including three alleged eyewitnesses, the injured informant, and the medical officer. The doctor found three simple injuries, two caused by a sharp-cutting weapon and one by a hard and blunt substance.

The trial court convicted the appellants under Sections 341 and 307/34 IPC and sentenced them to ten years’ rigorous imprisonment with fine under Section 307/34 IPC, along with one month’s simple imprisonment under Section 341 IPC, with sentences to run concurrently.

The appellants challenged the conviction, principally arguing that the Investigating Officer was not examined, the injuries were simple, no specific overt act was attributed to either appellant, and the land dispute created a motive for false implication.

1. Whether the prosecution evidence was sufficient to sustain the appellants’ conviction under Section 307 read with Section 34 IPC despite the non-examination of the Investigating Officer and the medical finding that the injuries were simple?

2. Whether, on the facts proved, the conviction under Section 307/34 IPC could be altered to offences under Sections 323 and 324 IPC?

3. What sentence, if any, should be imposed after such alteration of the conviction?

The Court applied Sections 341, 323, 324, 307 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Section 341 concerns wrongful restraint; Sections 323 and 324 respectively punish voluntarily causing hurt and voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons or means; Section 307 requires an act done with the intention or knowledge necessary for murder, coupled with an overt act towards its commission; and Section 34 attributes joint liability where a criminal act is performed in furtherance of common intention.

The Court accepted that the nature of the injury is not, by itself, determinative of an offence under Section 307 IPC, but held on the particular facts of this case that the ingredients of Section 307 were not established.

It further applied the appellate power to alter the conviction to a lesser offence where the evidence supports such offence.

The Court found “substantial infirmities” in the prosecution case.

It took into account the defence objections concerning the non-examination of the Investigating Officer, the inability to effectively challenge the place and manner of occurrence, the absence of a specific overt act, the admitted prior land dispute, and the medical evidence showing only simple injuries.

Although the State relied on the injured witness’s testimony and argued that simple injuries do not preclude Section 307 IPC, the Court concluded that the proved facts did not demonstrate the requisite intention or knowledge for an attempt to murder.

However, the evidence was considered sufficient to establish that the appellants had caused hurt, including hurt by a sharp-cutting weapon. Accordingly, the Court held that offences under Sections 323 and 324 IPC were made out and reduced the sentence to the period already undergone.

The impugned conviction dated 24 August 2018 was set aside/modified and the sentence dated 30 August 2018 was reduced to the period already undergone by the appellants.

The appellants were discharged from the liability of their bail bonds, and the appeal was disposed of accordingly.