Simple injuries without requisite intention or knowledge do not sustain conviction under Section 307 IPC.

On 3 February 2002 at approximately 7:00 p.m., while the informant, Patru Suren, was returning from his agricultural field, the appellant allegedly attacked him with a sword near his old house, causing injuries to his hands, back, head, waist, shoulder and wrist.

When the informant’s wife came to his rescue, the appellant allegedly assaulted her on the face with the sword and thereafter fled.

Owing to the absence of transport, the injured persons could not immediately approach the police station, and the informant subsequently lodged the case.

A case was registered under Sections 341, 324 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (“IPC”). Following investigation, a chargesheet was filed and the matter proceeded as S.T. No. 34 of 2004 before the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Jamshedpur.

The defence denied the occurrence and alleged false implication arising from a prior land dispute.

The trial court convicted the appellant under Sections 307, 341 and 324 IPC, sentencing him to five years’ rigorous imprisonment under Section 307 and one year’s rigorous imprisonment under Section 324, with the sentences to run concurrently; no separate sentence was imposed under Section 341.

The court applied Sections 307, 324 and 341 IPC.

For Section 307 IPC, the prosecution must establish both the accused’s intention to commit murder and an overt act towards its commission; the actual infliction of a fatal or grievous injury is not essential, but intention must be inferred from circumstances including the weapon used, the manner and severity of the assault, the part of the body targeted, the motive and the surrounding conduct.

The court relied on Jage Ram v. State of Haryana, (2015) 11 SCC 366.

Hari Singh v. Sukhbir Singh, (1988) 4 SCC 551, holds that the intention or knowledge required for attempt to murder must precede the act and cannot be inferred merely from the resultant injury.

Section 324 IPC concerns voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons or means, while Section 341 IPC concerns wrongful restraint.

The High Court found that the medical evidence of P.W.-6 established that the injuries suffered by the informant and his wife were simple in nature, although some were inflicted on vital parts of the body.

Applying the principles in Jage Ram and Hari Singh, the court held that the prosecution had failed to prove the specific intention or knowledge necessary for an offence under Section 307 IPC.

The court nevertheless accepted the consistent testimony of the injured and ocular witnesses, corroborated by the doctor, as sufficient to establish that the appellant caused hurt with a sword and wrongfully restrained the victims.

Considering that the appellant had already remained in custody for approximately one year and that the occurrence dated back to 2002, the court treated the period undergone as sufficient punishment for the offence under Section 324 IPC.

The conviction under Section 307 IPC and the corresponding five-year sentence were set aside for want of proof of the requisite intention or knowledge.

The convictions under Sections 324 and 341 IPC were affirmed, but the sentence under Section 324 IPC was reduced to the period already undergone; no separate sentence was imposed under Section 341 IPC.

As the appellant was on bail, he was discharged from the liabilities of his bail bonds and the sureties were released.