REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.           OF 2008 (Arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) No. 2495 of 2006)

State of Madhya Pradesh           ….Appellant  

Versus

Imrat and Anr. …. Respondents

J U D G M E N T

DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.

1. Leave granted.  

2. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of a learned

Single  Judge  of  the  Madhya  Pradesh  High  Court,  Gwalior

Bench partially allowing the appeal filed by the respondents.

The  Additional  Sessions  Judge,  Pichhore,  District  Shivpuri

found  the  respondents  guilty  of   having  committed  offence

punishable  under  Section  307  read  with  Section  34  of  the

Indian Penal  Code,  1860  (in short  the  ‘IPC’)  and sentenced

each to undergo seven years RI  with fine of Rs.1,000/-.    

3. The High Court  by the impugned judgment held that the

proper  conviction  would  be  under  Section  326  read  with

Section 34 IPC and the sentences were to be reduced to the

period already undergone.   

4. Background facts in a nutshell are as follows:

On 7.2.1997 daughter of the complainant was married to

Sitaram and the complainant wanted to give his property to

his  daughter.  Respondent-Imrat  who  is  one  of  the  close

relatives of the complainant, objected to this and, therefore, on

2.3.1997 accused persons caused injuries to the complainant.

At the time of the incident accused Imrat had a lathi in his

hand and accused Komal had a farsa with him. They caused

six  injuries  on  the  complainant.  On  the  basis  of  the

2

information  lodged  in  the  Police  Station,  investigation  was

undertaken and challan was filed against the accused persons

for  committing offence  punishable  under  Sections  307,  324

and  506(2)  IPC.   However,  as  noted  above,  the  trial  Court

convicted the accused for commission of offence punishable

under Section 307 read with Section 34 IPC.  The trial Court

noted  that  as  per  the  evidence  of  the  complainant  Bhajan

while he was going towards his house near the well accused

persons armed with lathi and farsa obstructed his way. Imrat

told  the co-accused that  complainant has to be  killed.   On

hearing this Komal hit the head of the complainant with farsa.

Imrat gave lathi blow on the wrist of right hand and left hand

and left foot. Komal hit him once more with farsa which struck

him on the head. The trial Court found the evidence of the

witnesses  credible  and  cogent  and  on  the  evidence  of  the

doctor found the accused persons guilty and convicted them

as afore-noted.

Before the High Court the only plea taken was that all

the  six  injuries  except  injury  Nos.1  and  2  are  simple  in

3

nature.  Injury  Nos.1  and  2  were  caused  by  sharp  edged

weapons and were grievous in nature. It was urged that there

was  no  material  to  show  that  these  two  injuries  were

dangerous to life or were sufficient in the ordinary course of

nature  to  cause  death.  According  to  them at  the  most  the

offence under Section 326 IPC was made out. This plea found

acceptance of the High Court.  

5. In  support  of  the  appeal,  learned  counsel  for  the

appellant-State submitted that the injuries were on the head

and were caused by sharp cutting weapons and the force with

which the blows were given can be seen from the nature of the

injuries on the head.  

6. No one appears for the respondents in spite of service of

notice.

7. The  injuries  which  were  noticed  by  the  doctor  are  as

follows:

4

“No.1 One  cut  wound  on  the  back  of head on the left side admeasuring 3.5 x 1 x 1 c.m.  

No. 2. One cut wound on the right side of the head admeasuring 1 x 1 x 1.5 c.m.

No. 3. One abrasion mark on the left hand, rounded admeasuring 5 x 5 c.m.

No. 4. One  crushed  wound  on  the  right elbow of 1 x 1 c.m.

No. 5. One  crushed  wound  with  swelling on the back side of right hand admeasuring 3 x 2 c.m.

No. 6. One crushed wound on the let feet measuring 4 x 5 c.m.”

8. The doctor has categorically stated that injury Nos. 1 and

2  were  caused  by  sharp  edged  weapons.   The  dying

declaration of the injured was recorded on the request of the

police.

9. It  is  to  be  noted  that  the  alleged  offences  are  of  very

serious nature.  Section 307 relates to attempt to murder.  It

reads as follows:  

5

“Whoever  does  any  act  with  such intention  or  knowledge,  and  under  such circumstances that, if he by that act caused death, he would be guilty of 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.”  

10. To  justify  a  conviction  under  this  Section,  it  is  not

essential that bodily injury capable of causing death should

have  been  inflicted.  Although  the  nature  of  injury  actually

caused may often give considerable assistance in coming to a

finding as to the intention of the accused, such intention may

also be deduced from other circumstances, and may even, in

some  cases,  be  ascertained  without  any  reference  at  all  to

actual wounds. The Section makes a distinction between an

act of the accused and its result, if any. Such an act may not

be attended by any result so far as the person assaulted is

concerned, but still there may be cases in which the culprit

6

would be liable under this Section. It is not necessary that the

injury actually caused to the victim of the assault should be

sufficient under ordinary circumstances to cause the death of

the person assaulted. What the Court has to see is whether

the act, irrespective of its result, was done with the intention

or  knowledge  and  under  circumstances  mentioned  in  the

Section. An attempt in order to be criminal need not be the

penultimate act. It is sufficient in law, if there is present an

intent coupled with some overt act in execution thereof.  

11. It is sufficient to justify a conviction under Section 307 if

there  is  present  an  intent  coupled  with  some  overt  act  in

execution thereof.  It is not essential that bodily injury capable

of  causing  death  should  have  been  inflicted.  The  Section

makes a distinction between the act of the accused and its

result,  if  any.   The  Court  has  to  see  whether  the  act,

irrespective  of  its  result,  was  done  with  the  intention  or

knowledge  and  under  circumstances  mentioned  in  the

Section.   Therefore,  an accused  charged under  Section 307

7

IPC cannot be acquitted merely because the injuries inflicted

on the victim were in the nature of a simple hurt.        

12. This position was highlighted in State of Maharashtra v.

Balram Bama Patil and Ors. (1983 (2) SCC 28), Girija Shanker

v.  State of Uttar Pradesh (2004 (3) SCC 793),  R. Parkash v.

State of Karnataka (JT 2004 (2) SC 348) and State of M.P. v.

Saleem @ Chamaru and Anr. (2005 (5) SCC 554).

13. In  Sarju Prasad v.  State of Bihar (AIR 1965 SC 843) it

was observed in para 6 that mere fact that the injury actually

inflicted  by  the  accused  did  not  cut  any  vital  organ of  the

victim,  is  not  by  itself  sufficient  to  take  the  act  out  of  the

purview of Section 307.

14. Whether  there  was  intention  to  kill  or  knowledge  that

death will be caused is a question of fact and would depend

on the facts of a given case. The circumstances that the injury

inflicted by the accused was simple or minor will not by itself

rule  out application of  Section 307 IPC.   The  determinative

8

question is intention or knowledge, as the case may be, and

not  nature  of  the  injury.  The  basic  differences  between

Sections 333 and 325 IPC are that Section 325 gets attracted

where  grievous  hurt  is  caused  whereas  Section  333  gets

attracted if such hurt is caused to a public servant.   

15. Section  307  deals  with  two  situations  so  far  as  the

sentence  is  concerned.   Firstly,  whoever  does  any  act  with

such intention or knowledge, and under such circumstances

that,  if  he by that act  caused  death,  he would be guilty  of

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 secondly 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 indicated in

the  first  part  i.e.  10  years.   The  maximum  punishment

provided for Section 333 is imprisonment of either description

for a term which may extend to 10 years with a liability to pay

fine.  

9

16. It is seen that the High Court had arrived at erroneous

hypothetical conclusions ignoring the fact that the nature of

injuries were grievous and were caused by use of sufficient

force by sharp edged weapons. The injuries were so serious

that  both  the  investigating  agency  and  the  doctor  felt  that

dying declaration was to be recorded. That being so, the High

Court’s conclusion that the offence under Section 307 was not

made out is clearly indefensible. The order of the High Court

is set aside and that of the trial Court is restored.  

17. The appeal is allowed.  

………………………....J. (Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT)

………………………….J. (P. SATHASIVAM)

New Delhi, July 11, 2008

10