http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 3  

CASE NO.: Appeal (crl.)  1427 of 2007

PETITIONER: Prakash Chandra Yadav

RESPONDENT: State of Bihar & Ors

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 12/10/2007

BENCH: S.B. Sinha & Harjit Singh Bedi

JUDGMENT: J U D G M E N T (Arising out of SLP (Crl) No.3244 of 2007) S.B. Sinha, J. 1.      Leave granted. 2.      This appeal is directed against a judgment and order dated 22.12.2006  passed by a Division Bench of the Patna High Court allowing the appeals  preferred by the respondents herein and dismissing the criminal revision  filed by the appellants herein.   3.      The factual matrix of the matter, as stated in the First Information  Report, is that at about 12.30 pm on 3.2.1994, the informant, Prakash  Chandra Yadav (PW-10) went to Railway Authority Club, Jamalpur to  receive the Chief Railway Engineer, Eastern Railway Gorakhpur and  Additional Divisional Engineer, Sonepur.  He waited for the said officers but  having come to learn that they would come later, left the club for his home  at about 3.15 pm by his motorcycle.  Mantu Kumar (PW-7) was with him on  the said motorcycle.   4.      Accused, Shyamdeo, named in the First Information Report as also  one unknown man, were standing on the road and were allegedly noticed by  the informant after coming out of the southern gate of the club.  When they  were proceeding towards the west, Shyamdeo ordered to kill the informant  whereupon Janardan Yadav took out a bomb from his bag and hurled the  same towards them.  It, however, did not explode.  Respondent Satya  Narayan Yadav also hurled a bomb towards the informant.  It exploded but  the informant did not sustain any injury.  Several persons assembled at the  said place whereupon, Shyamdeo Yadav allegedly chased them with his  licensed gun.  5.      The said incident is said to have been witnessed by Suresh Yadav,  Jawahar Yadav, Ram Naresh Prasad and several others.  Besides Prakash  Chandra Yadav (PW-10) and the informant, the prosecution examined  Suresh Yadav (PW-3), who is the brother of the informant, Jawahar yadav  (PW-4) cousin of the informant, Chunkeshwar (PW-2), Ram Naresh Yadav  (PW-5), father of the informant and Mantu Kumar (PW-7) (who was the  pillion rider) besides B.K. Mishra (PW-9), the Assistant Director, Regional  Forensic Science Laboratory, Muzaffarpur, the Chemical Examiner who had  examined the alleged explosive substances recovered from the place of  occurrence.   6.      Accused were charged for alleged commission of offence under  Sections 334 and 307/109 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 and 4 of  the Explosive Substances Act.  Motive for commission of the said offence is  said to be rivalry inter se between the parties in regard to grant of railway  contract(s).  7.      The learned Sessions Judge found the respondents guilty for  commission of an offence under Section 307/109B of the Indian Penal Code  but acquitted them from the charges under Sections 3 and 4 of the Explosive  Substance Act on the ground that no sanction from the appropriate authority  had been obtained therefor.  Janardan Yadav and Satya Naryan was  convicted under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to  undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years and Shyamdeo Yadav was  convicted under Section 307/109 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 3  

undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years. 8.      An appeal was preferred by the respondent before the High Court.   The first informant also filed a criminal revision application against the  judgment and order acquitted the respondents under Sections 3 and 4 of the  Explosive Substances Act as also for enhancement of sentence.  Both, the  criminal appeal as also the revision application, were taken up for hearing  together by a Division Bench of the Patna High Court.   9.      The High Court in its judgment started with the deposition of the  prosecution witnesses.  As regards the deposition of Prakash Chandra Yadav  (PW-10) (informant), it was noticed that he had fully supported the case of  the prosecution.  Similar narration of the statements made by the prosecution  witnesses were carried out the High Court from paragraphs 8 to 13 of the  judgment.  Paragraphs 14 to 16 referred to the submissions made by the  learned advocate for the respondents.  Paragraphs 17 to 19 were devoted to  the submissions made by the counsel for the appellant in support of the  criminal revision application.  Paragraph 20 thereof recorded that the  sanction accorded by the District Magistrate did not sub-serve the  requirements of law.        The judgment of the High Court is contained only in paragraph 21  thereof.  10.     To say the least, the judgment of the High Court is wholly  unsatisfactory.  The High Court nowhere arrived at the finding that the  prosecution witnesses contradicted themselves in material particulars so as  to render their testimonies untrustworthy.  It did not arrive at a finding that  the findings of the Trial Judge were either unsatisfactory or contrary to the  legal principles.  The High Court opined that as no injury had been caused to  the informant and PW-7, a case under Section 307 of the IPC is not made  out.  The said finding, in our opinion, is not legally sound.   11.     Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code reads as under : \023Section 307. Attempt to murder.\027Whoever   does any act with such intention or knowledge, and  under such circumstances that, if he by that act  caused death, he would be guilty or murder, shall  be punished with imprisonment of either  description for a term which may extend to ten  years, and shall also be liable to fine; and if hurt is  caused to any person by such act, the offender  shall be liable either to imprisonment for life, or to  such punishment as is hereinbefore mentioned.\024

12.     From a bare perusal of the said provision, it is evident that first part  thereof does not contemplate that receipt of any injury on the part of the  victim is a pre-requisite for convicting an accused thereunder.  In the event  injuries are received, the second part of Section 307 would be attracted.  The  necessary ingredients for attracting the first part of Section 307 of the Indian  Penal Code is intention or knowledge.  The legal position would be evident  from the illustration (c) appended to the said provision which reads as under: \023(c) A, intending to murder Z, buys a gun and  loads it. A has not yet committed the offence. A  fires the gun at Z. He has committed the offence  defined in this section, and if by such firing he  wounds Z, he is liable to the punishment provided  by the latter part of the first paragraph of this  section.\024

    Mr. V. Shekhar, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the  respondent has drawn our attention to a decision of this Court in Parsuram  Pandey & Ors. v. State of Bihar [(2004) 13 SCC 189] wherein, inter alia, it  was held : \023To constitute an offence under Section 307 two  ingredients of the offence must be present:  (a) an intention of or knowledge relating to  commission of murder; and  (b) the doing of an act towards it.  For the purpose of Section 307 what is material is

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 3  

the intention or the knowledge and not the  consequence of the actual act done for the purpose  of carrying out the intention. The section clearly  contemplates an act which is done with intention  of causing death but which fails to bring about the  intended consequence on account of intervening  circumstances. The intention or knowledge of the  accused must be such as is necessary to constitute  murder. In the absence of intention or knowledge  which is the necessary ingredient of Section 307,  there can be no offence \023of attempt to murder\024.  Intent which is a state of mind cannot be proved by  precise direct evidence, as a fact it can only be  detected or inferred from other factors. Some of  the relevant considerations may be the nature of  the weapon used, the place where injuries were  inflicted, the nature of the injuries and the  circumstances in which the incident took place.\024

    The said decision, therefore, itself is an authority for the proposition  that intention of or knowledge relating to the commission of murder and the  doing of an act towards it are the two ingredients of the offence under  Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code.        The High Court\022s judgment, therefore, cannot be sustained.  It is set  aside accordingly.  The matter is remitted to the High Court for  consideration of the matter afresh.  We, however, make it clear that we have  not gone into the merit of the matter.  The High Court is requested to hear  and dispose of the criminal appeal expeditiously.  The appeal is allowed with  the aforementioned directions.