Holding

A conviction under Section 307 IPC is justified where the accused acted with intention or knowledge of death, irrespective of the severity of the injury, and the sentence should be reduced in the absence of pre‑meditation.

Summary

Hari Mohan Mandal was convicted of offences under Sections 302 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code for a violent altercation that resulted in the death of Narayan Mandal and injuries to other witnesses. The appellant challenged the reliability of eyewitness testimony, argued that the injuries he inflicted were merely simple hurt and that there was no pre‑meditation, and contended that a life sentence was excessive. The Supreme Court held that the eyewitness evidence was credible and that for Section 307 it is sufficient that the accused acted with intention or knowledge of death, even if the actual injury was not fatal. The Court affirmed the conviction under Section 307 but reduced the custodial sentence to five years, noting the absence of pre‑meditation. The appeal was dismissed as to conviction but partially allowed as to sentence.

Issues considered

Whether the eyewitness testimony was sufficient to sustain a conviction under Section 307 IPC.
Whether simple or minor injuries preclude conviction under Section 307 IPC.
Whether pre‑meditation is a necessary element for an offence under Section 307 IPC.
Whether the life imprisonment sentence imposed for Section 307 was appropriate in the facts of the case.

Legislation cited

Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 109, s. 1208, s. 302, s. 307, s. 34

Subjects

IPC Section 307attempt to murderintentionsimple hurtpremeditationsentencingeyewitness testimony

Judgment

./
I
I

A HARi MOHAN MANDAL y
v.
STATE OF JHARKHAND

MARCH I 8, 2004

B [DORAISWAMY RAJU AND ARIJIT PASA YAT, JJ.]

Penal Code, 1860; Ss. /09, 1208, 302 and 307:

Assault and murder-Trial Court convicted main accused for committing
C offence under Section 302 and two co-accused under Section 307 and sentenced
them according~y-Afjirming conviction of the main accused and one of the
co-accused (appellant) under Sections 302 and 307 respectively, High Court
directed acquittal of the other co-accused-On appeal, Held: Injury inflicted
by the accused need not necessarily result in the death of the person assaulted
D but knowledge/intention to cause death coupled with some overt act in execution
thereof are sufficient to justifa. conviction under Section 307-Since no
deficiency in the testimony of the eyewitnesses found and injury inflicted was
on the vital part of the victim's body, Section 307 rightly invoked-However,
in the absence ofany pre-meditation/planning to kill, custodial sentence reduced
to 5 years.
E
According to the prosecution, on the fateful day, deceased along with
PWI and others had gone for husking paddy in a mill. Three accused
persons were also present there. Both the parties had entered into an
altercation on husking of their paddy first/earlier to the other. In the
F process, the appellant/co-accused forcibly put his paddy into the hauler.
When the deceased objected, the main accused gave 3-4 knife blows on
his abdomen, which has resulted in his death. In the meanwhile, one of
the co-accused/appellant slabbed PWI on his head and eye and another
co-accused further assaulted him; and after committing the crime all the
accused persons ned away. A complaint was lodged in the Police Station.
G Police investigated the matter and submitted the charge sheet under
Sections 302, 307, 109/34 IPC against 5 accused persons. Trial Court found
three of them guilty for committing offences and convicted the main
accused under Section 302 !PC and two co-accused under Section 307 IPC
and sentenced them accordingly. However, it acquitted the other two co-

H 98
HAR! MOHAN MANDAL v. STATE OF .lHARKHAND 99
accused. On appeal, High Court affirmed the conviction and sentence in A
respect of the main accused and the co-accused (appellant) but found the
evidence insufficient in respect of other co-accused and directed his
acquittal. Hence;the present appeal by the convicted accused.

It was contended by the appellant that the eyewitnesses were not
reliable and thus their version was not believable; that since the occurrence B
of the incident was without any premeditation, offence under Section 307
could not be made out; and that since the injuries inflicted by the appellant
on PWl were in the nature of simple hurt, awarding of sentence of life
imprisonment was harsh.

Disposing of the appeal, the Court c
HELD: 1.1. There is no deficiency in the evidence of PWs. l and 5
which could warrant its rejection. 1100-D]

1.2. It is not necessary that the injury actually caused to the victim D
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 Section 307 IPC. An attempt in
order to be criminal need not be the penultimate act. It is sufficient to
justify a conviction in law, if there is present an intent coupled with some E
overt act in execution thereof. Therefore, it is not correct to acquit an
accused of the charge under the Section merely because the injuries
inflicted on the victim were in the nature of a simple hurt. The
circumstance that the injury inflicted by the accused was simple or minor
will not by itself rule out application of Section 307 IPC. The determinative
question is intention or knowledge, as the case may be, and not nature of F
the injury. [103-A-D; G]

State of Maharashtra v. Bairam Barna Patil and Ors., 11983] 2 SCC
28; R. Prakash v. State of Karnataka, [2004] 2 SC 78 and Sarju Prasad v.
State of Bihar, AIR (1965) SC 843, referred to. G
1.3. The first injury was certainly on a vital part and taking into
account the injuries on the various parts of the body of the victim, Section
307 IPC has been rightly invoked and the accused has rightly been
convicted for committing the offence punishable under the Section.
However, taking into account the fact that the altercations took place at H
·{
100 SUPREME COURT REPORTS f2004] 3 S.CR.

A the time of husking paddy and there was no pre-meditation or planning
of the attack, custodial sentence of five years would meet the ends of
justice. 1104-C-D!

CRIMJNAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No.
348 bf 2004.
B
From the Judgment and Order dated 21.2.2003 of the Jharkhand High
Court at Ranchi in Crl. A. No. 395 of 1997.

Ravi Prakash Gupta and Sushendra Kumar Chauhan for the Appellant.

C Manish Mohan and Anil Kumar Jha for the Respondent.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. Leave granted.

D Appellant along with four others faced trial for alleged commission of
offence punishable under Section 302, 302 read with Section 1208, 307, 302
read with Section 109 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short the '!PC').
The Trial Court found the appellant Hari Mohan Manda! and two other ·.(
accused persons Chandra Mohan and Vijay to be guilty. Two others, namely,
Gajadhar Manda! and Rameshwar Mahto were acquitted. While Chandra
E Mohan was found guilty of offence punishable under Section 302 !PC,
accused-appellant Hari Mohan Manda! and Vijay Manda] were found guilty
of the offence punishable under Section 307 !PC. Each was sentenced to

F
undergo imprisonment for life.

In appeal, a Division Bench of the Jharkhand High Court dismissed the
appeal so far as the accused Chandra Mohan and present appellant are
-
concerned, but directed acquittal of the accused Vijay Manda!. The sentence
as imposed by the Trial Court was maintained so far as the accused appellant
is concerned.

G Prosecution version as unfolded during trial in a nutshell is as follows:

At about 6.30 a.m. on the date of occurrence i.e. 12.2.1994, the informant
along with his uncles, Narayan Manda! (hereinafter described as 'the
deceased') and Janardhan Manda! (PW-I) had gone for husking the paddy in
the pounding mill of Sikandar Mahto, situated at Godda Pirpaiti Pitch Road.
H After their arrival, the three accused persons Chandra Mohan Manda!, Hari
HARi MOHAN MAND AL v. STATE OF .IHARKHAND (PASA YAT. J.]I 01

Mohan Manda! and Vijay Manda! also went there. They had kept their paddy A
bag at the Mill on the previous day. Both the parties entered into an altercation
regarding the husking of their paddy first. The appellant, Hari Mohan Manda!
forcibly put his paddy into the hauler. When deceased Narayan Manda!
objected, all the accused persons abused him and the accused Chandra Mohan
Mandal brought out a knife from his waist and gave 3-4 knife blows on his B
abdomen. On being injured deceased Naryana l'v' mci .. l fell down. When
Janardhan Manda! (PW-I) went to rescue him, then the accused Hari Mohan
Manda! took the knife from Chandra Mohan Manda! anc stabbed on his head
and eye. He also fell down on being injured. Accused Vijay Manda! assaulted
by throwing bricks hitting eye of Janardhan Manda! (PW-I). The bricks
thrown at the informant Guddu Kumar (PW-5) by accused Vijay Manda! did C
not hit him. Thereafter, all the accused person fled away. Narayan Manda!
died at the spot. The injured, Janardhan Manda! (PW-I) was sent to Sadar
Hospital for treatment on a rickshaw. Rameshwar Mahto, father of mill
owner, Sikandar Mahto and Joginder Mahto (PW-9) saw the alleged
occurrence. On alarm, the villagers assembled there. The informant (PW-5)
put the dead body of Narayan Manda! on a trolley with the help of others. D
Fard beyan (Ext. 4) of the informant Guddu Kumar Manda! (PW-5) was
recorded by S.I., R.K. Bharamchari (PW-11) Officer-in-charge, Godda P.S.
on 12.2.1994 at 9.20 a.m. at the P.O. Village Punasia, P.S. Godda Town.
After investigation charge-sheet under Sections 302, 307 !PC was submitted.
Supplementary charge-sheet under Sections 302, 307, 109/34 IPC was E
submitted against Gajadhar Manda! and Rameshwar Mahto, who were
acquitted by the Trial Court.

In order. to bring home the accusations 13 witnesses were examined by
the prosecution. The Trial Court found the evidence of injured A-1 and the
informant Guddu Kuinar (PW-5) to be. cogent and credible. Placing reliance F
on their evidence, the Trial Court found 3 accused persons guilty but found
that the prosecution has not established its case so far as the co-accused
Gajadhar Manda! and Rameshwar Mahto are concerned and accordingly
directed their acquittal.

During trial and in appeal, the evidence of the eyewitnesses were G
questioned on the ground of witnesses being partisan and the alleged
suppression of the genesis of the dispute. The Trial Court and the High Court
did not accept the stand and found the evidence to be cogent. Strong reliance
was placed on the evidence of injured witness PW-I and also other eyewitness
PW-5. The High Court found that the prosecution has established its case, so H
{
102 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2004] 3 S.C.R.

A far as accused-appellant is concerned and co-accused Chander Mohan Manda!
is concerned. But found evidence to be insufficient in respect of accused
Vijay Manda!.

In support of the appeal, learned counsel for the appellant submitted
that both the Trial Court and the High Court have not analysed the evidence
B in the proper perspective. The so-called eyewitnesses were not reliable and
their version was not believable. Furthermore, the occurrence allegedly took
place regarding husking of paddy and without any pre-mediation the alleged
attacks were made. In any event, the offence under Section 307 is not made
out, so far as the appellant is concerned taking into account the injuries
C sustained by PW- I, and the life imprisonment as awarded is harsh.

In response, learned counsel for the State supported judgments of the
Trial Court and the High Court and further submitted that in view of the
analysis made and the nature of the injuries proved to have been inflicted no
interference is called for.
D We find no scope for any deficiency in the evidence of PWs I and 5
to warrant rejection. The plea of the appellant that the same is full of
blemishes has not been substantiated. On the contrary, the same has a ring
of truth.

E In the factual scenario noted above, it has to be seen whether Section
307 !PC has application. Said provision reads as follows:

"Whoever does any act with such intention or knowledge, and
under such cir.cumstances that, if he by that act caused death, he
would be guilty of murder, shall be punished with imprisonment of
F 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."

To justify a conviction under this Section, it is not essential that bodily
G 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
H a distinction between an act of the accused and its result, if any. Such an act
r
HARi MOHAN MANDAL v. STATE OF JHARKHAND [PASAYAT, l.]103

may not be attended by any result so far as the person assaulted is concerned, A
but still there may be cases in which the culprit would be !fable 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 Jrd~r to be criminal B
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.

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.
c
If the injury inflicted has been with the avowed object or intention to cause
death, the ritual nature, extent or character of the injury or whether such
injury is sufficient to actually causing death are really factors which are
wholly irrelevant for iidjudging the culpability under Section 307 !PC. The
Section makes a distinction between the act of the accused and its result, if D
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, it is not correct to acquit an accused of the charge under
Section 307 !PC merely because the injuries inflicted on the victim were in
the nature of a simple hurt.
E
This position was highlighted in State of Maharashtra v. Bairam Barna
Patil and Ors., [1983] 2 SCC 28 and in R. Prakash v. State of Karnataka,
(2004) 2 Supreme 78

r 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
F
not cut any vital organ of the victim, is not by itself sufficient to take the act
out of the purview of Section 307.

Whether there was intention to kill or know ledge that death will be
caused is a question of fact and would depend on the facts of a given case. G
The circumstance that the injury inflicted by the accused was simple or minor
will not by itself rule out application of Section 307 !PC. The determinative
question is intention or knowledge, as the case may be, and not nature of the

• injury .

The injuries noticed on PW-I by the doctor PW-6 are as follows: H
104 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2004] 3 S.C.R.

A (a) One incised wound over left supra orbital area obliquely placed
in oozing condition. Dimension 8 cm x 2 cm x 2.5 cm.
(b) One incised wound over left molar area of the face 6 cm x 2 cm
x 2.5 cm in oozing condition.
(c) One abrasion over the left patellar area 6 cm x 4.5 cm.
B
(d) One bruise over both eye lids on left side 5 cm x 3 cm and 4.5
cm x 2.5 cm.
(e) Illegible at multiple site.
(f\ the whole left eye was reddened due to extensive conjunctiva!
c hemorrhage.

The first injury was said to be grievous and the opinion so far injury
no. 6 is concerned, was kept reserved.

The first injury was certainly on a vital part and taking into account the
D injuries on the various parts of the body, Section 307 IPC has been rightly
invoked. The accused has been rightly convicted for offences punishable
under Section 307 !PC. However, taking into account the fact that the
altercations took place at the time of husking 'paddy and there was no pre-
meditation or planning of the attack, custodial sentence of five years would
E meet the ends of justice. It is to be noted that scope for consideration in the
appeal was limited to the nature of offence and consequently the sentence.

The appeal stands dismissed so far as conviction is concerned, but is
f partly allowed to the extent of sentence as indicated above.

S.K.S. Appeal dismissed.

•