RAM KUMAR AND ANOTHERversusSTATE OF U.P.

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

                 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 2443 of 1985

Ram Kumar And Another
                                                             .....Appellant(s)
                                   Versus
State of U.P.
                                                           .....Respondent(s)

Counsel for Appellant(s)              :   G.P.Dixit, Rashmi Srivastava
Counsel for Respondent(s)             :   A.G.A.

Court No. - 93
            HON'BLE MRS. VANI RANJAN AGRAWAL, J.

1.This appeal has been filed by the appellants against the judgment and order
dated 10.09.1985 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Kanpur, in
Sessions Trial No. 475 of 1983, Police Station Fazalganj, District Kanpur,
whereby the appellants were convicted and sentenced to three years of
rigorous imprisonment under Section 307 I.P.C.
2. Heard Ms. Rashmi Srivastava, learned Amicus Curiae appearing on behalf
of appellants and Sri Rahul Asthana, learned A.G.A. for the State.
3. The prosecution case, in brief, is that the informant, Jagdish Narayan was
the landlord of house No.119/148 situated at Om Nagar, Police Station-
Fazalganj, Kanpur Nagar and the accused persons, Ram Kumar and Puchchi
were the tenants. Due to a dispute regarding rent, enmity developed between
them. On 24.12.1982 at about 10.45 p.m., when Jagdish Narayan was inside
his house, the accused persons came and fired upon him with intention to
cause his death.
4. It is alleged that upon firing by appellant Ram Kumar, the complainant
Jagdish Narayan immediately fell down and escaped injury. Thereafter,
appellant Puchchi fired at him and the complainant sustained firearm
injuries.
5. The injured was taken to the police station and thereafter to Halet
Hospital, where his medical examination was conducted the next morning.
6. FIR was registered on the basis of written report. The matter was
investigated by Sub Inspector Adil Rashid Khan. After completion of
investigation, charge-sheet was submitted under Section 307 I.P.C.
7. Charges were framed and read over to the accused persons. They denied
the charges and claimed trial.
8. The prosecution has examined as many as five witnesses namely, P.W.-1
the complainant Jadish Narayan Tripathi, P.W.-2 Ashok Kumar Vajpayee
                                                           CRLA No. 2443 of 1985
                                 2

and P.W.-3 Jagat Narayan, eyewitnesses, P.W.-4 Dr. N.C. Yadav and P.W.-5
Sub Inspector Adil Rashid Khan.
9. The documentary evidences, written report, the FIR, carbon copy of G.D.,
medical report, Site Plan and charge-sheet, Ext. Ka-1 to Ka-5 respectively
are available on record.
10. The learned trial court after hearing the arguments advanced by the both
the parties and considering oral and documentary evidence on record,
returned the finding of guilt and convicted the accused persons for offence
under Section 307 I.P.C. and sentenced them to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for three years.
11. Aggrieved with the order of conviction and sentence, the present appeal
has been preferred on the grounds that conviction of the appellants is against
the weight of evidence on record and bad in law. The sentence imposed by
the learned trial court is too severe. Therefore, it is prayed that the appeal be
allowed and the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence being set
aside. The appellants be acquitted of all the charges.
12. Learned A.G.A. for the State has supported the judgment of conviction
and sentence.
13. A perusal of record transpires that the prosecution witness P.W.-1
Jagdish Narayan Tripathi has supported the prosecution case in his
testimony. P.W.-2 Ashok Kumar who reached the spot after hearing the
noise but did not witness the firing. P.W.-3 Jagat Narayan who saw the
incident and stated against accused Puchchi. P.W.-4 Dr. N.C. Yadav has
proved the medical report and injuries sustained by the complainant. P.W.-5
Sub Inspector Adil Rashid Khan is the Investigating Officer. He described
the proceedings and the evidences collected during investigation.
14. After considering the evidence on record this Court finds that the
presence of the injured at the place of the occurrence is established. The
testimony of complainant P.W.-1 (the injured witness) is corroborated by the
evidence of eye-witnesses. P.W.-2 Ashok Kumar and P.W.-3 Chheda Lal.
The medical evidence also supports the ocular version to the extent that
firearm related injuries were sustained by the injured. Therefore, the
occurrence itself and the participation of the appellant in the offence stands
proved.
15. The crucial aspect, however, relates to the nature of injuries. As per the
testimony of P.W.-4 Dr. N.C. Yadav, the injured sustained only two injuries
in the nature of abrasions and the injuries were superficial in nature. There
was no fracture on the body of the injured. The injuries sustained by the
injured were not opined by the doctor to be grievous or life threatening.
16. For conviction under Section 307 I.P.C. the prosecution must prove :-
(i) Intention or knowledge to cause death;
                                                             CRLA No. 2443 of 1985
                                  3

(ii) An act done in furtherance of such intention;
(iii) Nature of injury and surrounding circumstances reflecting such
intention.
17. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Sarju Prasad Vs. State of Bihar, AIR 1965
SC 843 has held that mere act of firing does not automatically attract Section
307 I.P.C. unless the intention to cause death is clearly established.
Similarly, in State of M.P. Vs. Saleem @ Chamaru and Anr, (2005) 5
SCC 554, it was observed that the nature of injury, the weapon used and the
surrounding circumstances are crucial in determining the intention.
18. In the present case, the injuries sustained by the complainant are simple
and superficial in nature. No vital organ was targeted or damaged. The
injuries do not reflect an intention to cause death. Thus, although firing is
proved, the essential ingredients of intention to commit murder who attract
section 307 I.P.C. are not established.
19. It was also argued on behalf of the appellants that even if the prosecution
case is accepted in toto, the offence under Section 307 I.P.C. is not made
out. At the highest, the case may fall within the ambit of Section 324 I.P.C.,
considering the nature of injuries.
20. Section 324 I.P.C. reads as under :-

     "Voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons or means.-
     Whoever, except in the case provided for by section 334, voluntarily
     causes hurt by means of any instrument for shooting, stabbing or cutting,
     or any instrument which, used as a weapon of offence, is likely to cause
     death, or by means of fire or any heated substance, or by means of any
     poison or any corrosive substance, or by means of any explosive
     substance or by means of any substance which it is deleterious to the
     human body to inhale, to swallow, or to receive into the blood, or by
     means of any animal, shall be punished with imprisonment of either
     description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or
     with both."

21. Section 324 I.P.C. provides for sentences for voluntarily causing hurt by
dangerous weapon including firearms. Since the injuries were caused by
firearm is proved but the nature of injury is simple and superficial, the act
falls short of attempt to murder. The offence squarely falls within the ambit
of Section 324 I.P.C. This Court holds that conviction under Section 307
I.P.C. is unjust, however, the appellants are liable to be convicted for offence
under Section 324 I.P.C.
22. A perusal of record transpires that the appellants were sent to jail for a
few months during trial and after their conviction considering that the
incident is of the year 1982 and the appeal is pending for about 4 decades,
                                                                                              CRLA No. 2443 of 1985
                                                                    4

                                    this Court finds it appropriate to modify the sentence.
                                    23. Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed. The conviction under Section
                                    307 I.P.C. is hereby set aside. Instead, the appellants are convicted for
                                    offence under section 324 I.P.C. The sentence awarded by learned trial court
                                    is also set aside and the appellants are sentenced to the period already
                                    undergone.
                                    24. The appellant is on bail. His bail bonds are cancelled and sureties are
                                    discharged.

                                    25. All coercive measures, including notice to the sureties of the appellants
                                    vide order dated 20.01.2026, are cancelled/recalled.

                                    26. A copy of this order be transmitted along with trial court record, if
                                    available, to concerned trial court for necessary compliance.

                                    27. This court appreciates the assistance provided by Ms. Rashmi
                                    Srivastava, learned Amicus Curiae, who has assisted the Court and for the
                                    service rendered by him, an honorarium of Rs. 10,000/- shall be paid to him
                                    as per rules.

                                    April 24, 2026
                                    P. Pandey

                                                                                (Mrs. Vani Ranjan Agrawal,J.)




Digitally signed by :-
PUSHPENDRA PANDEY
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad