http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2  

PETITIONER: SANJAY KUMAR AND ANOTHER

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: STATE OF M.P.

DATE OF JUDGMENT15/02/1993

BENCH: AHMADI, A.M. (J) BENCH: AHMADI, A.M. (J) MOHAN, S. (J)

CITATION:  1994 SCC  Supl.  (1) 502

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                            ORDER 1.   Special leave granted. 2.   We  have  heard learned counsel for the  appellants  as well as the State of Madhya Pradesh.  We have also before us the learned counsel for the original complainant.  The trial court  had  acquitted  the appellants  but  the  High  Court convicted  them under Section 307 IPC and sentenced them  to rigorous imprisonment for three years.  The learned  counsel for  the  appellants rightly pointed out that  all  the  six incised wounds were not more than 1/2 inch in size and  were skin  deep and, therefore, the High Court was not  right  in attributing  an  intention to cause death.  The  High  Court came to the conclusion that having regard to the fact that a sharp cutting instrument was used and certain injuries  were caused  on  the chest portion of the complainant-PW  2,  the intention of the assailant was clearly to commit murder and, therefore, the offence fell within the ambit of Section  307 IPC.   We are afraid we cannot accept this approach  of  the High  Court.   The circumstances under  which  the  incident occurred do not permit such an inference.  The quarrel  took place suddenly.  The complainant too had a criminal history. When  the complainant objected to the language used  by  the appellants  the  latter  reacted  and  these  injuries  were caused.  There was no motive whatsoever.  There could be  no intention  to kill.  In order to bring the case  within  the ambit of Section 307 IPC, it must be shown that the  accused acted  with  such  intention or  knowledge  and  under  such circumstances that if he by that act caused death, he  would be  guilty  of murder.  To justify a conviction  under  this provision  an  intention or knowledge to  constitute  murder must exist, it is a different matter that the act fell short of that offence.  The injuries caused are only skin deep and having  regard to the size of the injuries it would  not  be permissible to infer that the assault was launched with such intent.  Besides there is no evidence to show that any X-Ray was  taken,  though  advised, and, if yes,  that  the  X-Ray

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

revealed any serious injury.  Taking an overall view of  the matter, we are of the opinion that at best even if we accept the  evidence of prosecution witnesses viz., PWs 2, 4 and  5 as  has  been done by the High Court, the  case  would  fall within the scope of Section 324 IPC.  Since the parties  who are  neighbours  have  expressed a desire  to  compound  the matter and since the learned counsel for the complainant who is  present  before us has also stated that her  client  has desired  that  permission  to compound  the  matter  may  be granted  to  ensure lasting peace, we see no  difficulty  in granting  the  permission  to the parties  to  compound  the matter.  An affidavit in that behalf has already been  filed and the same is on record.  We accept the same and treat the matter  as compounded.  In view thereof the  conviction  and sentence  are  set  aside  and  the  appellants  will  stand acquitted  as  the  matter  has  been  compounded  with  the permission of the Court.  The appeal will stand disposed  of accordingly. 504