SC No.217 of 2024, Asst. Session Judge, Bodhan
Dated 11.04.2025
IN THE COURT OF THE ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE AT BODHAN
Present :- Ajay Kumar Devan, Assistant Sessions Judge
Friday, this the 11th day of April, 2025
Sessions Case No.217 of 2024
(Arising out of PRC No.13/2024 of Police Station Bodhan Town on the file of learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Bodhan)
Name of complainant:The State represented by Police, P.S. Bodhan Town.
Name of Accused:Jeevan Singh s/o.Mohan Singh, aged 68 years, Occ: Coolie, r/o.Gurugovind Nagar, Bodhan.
Charge:U/s.307 of Indian Penal Code (In short ‘IPC’)
Plea of Accused:Pleaded not guilty
Finding:Found guilty for the offence under section 324 of Indian Penal Code
Sentence or Order:The accused is found not guilty for the offence U/s.307 of IPC and accordingly he is acquitted U/s.235(1) Cr.P.C., but found guilty U/s.324 of IPC and accordingly convicted U/s.222 of Code of Criminal Procedure (In short ‘Cr.P.C.’)
Prosecution conducted byDr.P.Samaiah, Addl.Public Prosecutor, Bodhan.
Accused defended bySri.S.Raju Patel, Advocate for accused.
This case is coming on 10.04.2025 before me for final hearing and disposal in the presence of Dr. P.Samaiah, Additional Public Prosecutor for the State and Sri S.Raju Patel, learned Advocate for the accused and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:-
Page No.1 of 27
SC No.217 of 2024, Asst. Session Judge, Bodhan
Dated 11.04.2025
J U D G M E N T
1.Sole accused is prosecuted for the offence under section 307 of IPC for attempt to commit murder of Late D.Gangadhar/Lw4.
2.The incident which gave rise to the present case occurred on 08.06.2024 at about 12.00 noon at the toddy shop, situated near old bus stand, Bodhan. According to the prosecution, the injured, Late
D.Gangadhar/Lw4 and accused are acquainted with each other as they used to consume toddy. Few days prior to the incident the injured lost some money and he developed suspicion on the accused and question him for which the accused developed grudge and was waiting for an opportunity to wreck his vengeance. On the aforesaid date and time the accused was consuming toddy in the aforesaid toddy shop. When the injured visited the said shop he was intercepted by the accused by pushing with his shoulder and when he fell down he caught hold of him and attacked with a knife and caused bleeding injury on his neck and left the place. On coming to know about the incident from the locals, the wife of Injured, D.Laxmi/Pw1 visited the spot and shifted her husband to the Government Hospital, Bodhan for treatment. The Incident was witnessed by Pw2/R.Gangamani and Pw3/C.Babu Rao.
Page No.2 of 27
SC No.217 of 2024, Asst. Session Judge, Bodhan
Dated 11.04.2025
3.Basing on the said report of Pw1 the criminal law was put into motion and the investigation was taken up by the Inspector of Police,
PS.Bodhan, S.Veeraiah/Pw8, who registered a case in Crime
No.307/2024 under section 307 of IPC. During the course of investigation, at the police station he has recorded the 161 Cr.P.C., statement of Pw1. Then he has visited the Government Hospital,
Bodhan and recorded the statements of Pw2/R.Gangamani,
Pw3/C.Babu Rao and Late D.Gangadhar. Later he has visited the scene of offence and in the presence of two mediators, Lw5/Md.Imtiyaz and
Pw4/K.Srikanth prepared a crime detail form. On the same day at 4.00 p.m., he apprehended the accused at Guru Govind Singh Nagar and interrogated him in the presence of two mediators, Pw5/P.Srinivas
Reddy and Pw6/P.Abbaiah and recovered a knife used in commission of offence. After completion of arrest formalities, he was sent to judicial remand. The Injured was treated by the Civil Assistant Surgeon,
Government Hospital, Bodhan, Dr.MD.Aleemuddin/Pw7 and he issued would certificate opining that the Injured received lacerated injury over the left side of neck, 4 x 1 x 4 cms and it might be caused with sharp object. On completion of investigation, a charge sheet was laid down.
4.The learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Bodhan took cognizance of the offence under section 307 of IPC and registered the case as
Page No.3 of 27
SC No.217 of 2024, Asst. Session Judge, Bodhan
Dated 11.04.2025
PRC.No.13/2024. On the appearance of the accused before the said court, copies required under section 207 of Cr.P.C. were furnished to them and the matter was committed to the Hon'ble Principal District &
Sessions Judge's Court, Nizamabad and registered as S.C.No.217/2024
and later made over to this court for disposal.
5.On appearance of the accused before this court and hearing both the learned Additional Public Prosecutor (In short learned APP) and the learned defense counsel, charge under section 307 of IPC was framed.
As the accused has pleaded not guilty, the case came up for trial, wherein the prosecution has examined Pws.1 to 8 and exhibited P1 to
P8 and MO.1, in detail mentioned in the appendix of evidence annexed hereunder. After the closure of prosecution evidence, the statement of accused was recorded under section 313 of Cr.P.C., and his case is of total denial and he did not choose to produce any evidence.
6.Heard both the learned APP and the learned defense counsel. The learned APP would argue that;
a) The medical evidence on record proves that Late D.Gangadhar has received lacerated injury on his neck. Pw1 is wife of injured and Pws.2 and 3 are the direct witnesses to the incident. The evidence of Pw2 shows that she has witnessed the accused committing the offence and
Page No.4 of 27
SC No.217 of 2024, Asst. Session Judge, Bodhan
Dated 11.04.2025
her evidence is sufficient to convict the accused. Pws.1 and 3 have corroborated the evidence of Pw2 in all material aspects. Unfortunately, the injured could not be examined as he is no more. No specific case was set up by the accused to disprove the prosecution case.
7.Per contra, the learned defense counsel has criticized the prosecution case on the following grounds:-
a) Pw1 is a hearsay witness and her evidence is of no use to the prosecution case. Apart from this there are several contradictions in her evidence. She stated that on the particular day at 1.00 p.m., she came to know about the incident, but the First Information Report (In short ‘FIR’) was registered at 12.00 noon. She further stated that her statement was taken down at the hospital and she did not visit the police station which is contrary to the evidence of Pw8 who has stated that
Pw1 lodged report at the police station. She is a hearsay witness and the injured was very much available, but he did not lodge his report which creates doubt in the prosecution case. In support he relied upon a judgment reported in Raju and another Vs. State of Uttarakhand,
Criminal Appeal No.1151/2010, Supreme Court.
b) Pw2 is related and Interested witness and whereas the investigation officer did not choose to examine any of the Independent witnesses present at the scene of offence and even the toddy shop owner to
Page No.5 of 27
SC No.217 of 2024, Asst. Session Judge, Bodhan
Dated 11.04.2025
establish the crime. Pw2 is a planted witness and there are several omissions and contradictions in her evidence to disbelieve her. She stated that at about 12.00 noon she was consuming the toddy at the scene of offence. Her evidence shows that toddy shop is also available at her village Bellal but she came down to consume toddy at 12.00 noon at the scene of offence which is highly improbable. She claim that she has informed the incident to Pw1, who in turn came down to scene of offence and shifted her husband to the hospital, which is contrary to the evidence of Pw1 and Pw3. The evidence of Pw3 shows that Pw2 has informed Pw1 about the incident after two days. According to her on the particular day she came down to her mother’s house and was consuming toddy at the scene of offence toddy shop which fact is omitted in her 161 Cr.P.C. statement and as such unbelievable.
c) Pw3 is real brother of Pw1 and he has turned hostile. He stated that he did not witness the incident. Apart from this there are several contradictions in the evidence of Pws.1 to 3 and it is unsafe to rely upon their evidence.
d) The panch for scene crime detail form Pw4 and the panchas Pws.5 and 6 for recording the confession statement of accused and recovery of MO.1 have turned hostile. Thus the prosecution has failed to prove seizure of MO.1 from the possession of the accused.
Page No.6 of 27
SC No.217 of 2024, Asst. Session Judge, Bodhan
Dated 11.04.2025
e) The medical evidence on record shows that the injuries received by the injured are possible if he falls down on ground on broken glass pieces. The case of the accused is that the injured fell down in the toddy shop and received injuries by coming into contract with glass pieces. If the matter was reported to police the owner of toddy shop will be prosecution for the offence and in order to save him from the prosecution the accused was implicated. Thus the medical evidence supports the defense story.
f) Even if the prosecution case is believed, the accused cannot be convicted for the offence under section 307 of IPC as there was no motive to commit murder. In support he relied upon a judgment held in between Ramgopal Vs. State of Maharashtra, Criminal Appeal
No.143/1971, dated 29.11.1971, Supreme Court.
8.Now the points for determination are :- 1) Whether on 08.06.2024 at about 12.00 noon the injured, Late D.Gangadhar has received a lacerated injury on his neck? 2) Whether the accused has caused the said injury on Late D.Gangadhar with MO.1 with an intention to commit his murder?
9.Point No.1: I have perused the entire material on record. There is no serious controversy about the Injury caused to Late D.Gangadhar. The
Page No.7 of 27
SC No.217 of 2024, Asst. Session Judge, Bodhan
Dated 11.04.2025
medical evidence on record and the admissions made by the accused proves this fact. Ex.P5 is the wound certificate issued by Pw7 and shows that on 08.06.2024 in the afternoon the Injured was examined. A lacerated Injury of 4 x 1 x 1 cms was found on his left side neck. Pw7 opined that the said Injury might be caused with sharp object. In his cross examination he stated that the Injury under Ex.P5 is possible if a person falls down on a broken glass pieces. Thus Ex.P5 and the testimony of Pw7 shows that Late D.Gangadhar received lacerated injury on left side of his neck.
10.Pw1 is wife of the victim and Pw3 is her brother. Both these witnesses have categorically stated about the injury caused to Late D.Gangadhar and shifting him to Government Hospital, Bodhan. This fact was not seriously disputed by the accused. Thus when the oral testimony of
Pws.1 and 3 coupled with medical evidence on record are considered, it is clear that on 08.06.2024 at 12.00 noon, Late D.Gangadhar has received lacerated injury on his left side of neck. Accordingly, this point is answered in favour of the prosecution.
11.Point No.2 :- According to the prosecution due to previous disputes the accused has committed the offence with MO.1. Per contra, the case set up by the accused as seen from the cross examination of Pw8 is that
Page No.8 of 27
SC No.217 of 2024, Asst. Session Judge, Bodhan
Dated 11.04.2025
Late D.Gangadhar fell down in the toddy shop and received injuries and in order to help the toddy shop owner from the criminal prosecution, this case is foisted.
12.The prosecution relied upon the evidence of Pws.1 to 3, recovery of
MO.1 from the possession of the accused and his confession statement to prove its case.
13.Pw1 is hearsay witness and only after coming to know about the
Incident she has put the criminal law into motion by lodging her report/Ex.P1. Pw2 is said to be the direct witness and whereas Pw3 though cited as an eye witness has turned hostile to some extent and stated that he did not notice the incident and after coming to know that her brother-in-law received injuries in toddy shop and he along with his sister shifted him to Government Hospital, Bodhan. Thus, the evidence of Pw2 is crucial to connect the accused with the offence.
14.Ex.P1 is the report lodged by Pw1 and this document is not a substantial piece of evidence but it can be used for corroboration and contradiction.
This document shows that on the particular day Late D.Gangadhar visited the toddy shop situated in old bus stand, Bodhan and the accused with a knife committed the offence on him. Pw1 came to know
Page No.9 of 27
SC No.217 of 2024, Asst. Session Judge, Bodhan
Dated 11.04.2025
about the incident through locals and also came to know that the accused has committed the offence. The said document shows that the incident took place on 08.06.2024 at 12.00 noon and immediately on the same day at 2.00 p.m., report was lodged before Pw8.
15.The evidence of Pw1 is consistent with Ex.P1. She categorically stated that on the particular day at 1.00 p.m., she came to know from Pw2 that the accused has attacked her husband with a knife and caused bleeding
Injury in toddy shop and he was shifted to Government Hospital,
Bodhan. Immediately she proceeded to the said hospital. The police officials visited the hospital and recorded her statement. Her report was prepared at the hospital by the police authorities. In cross examination she stated that she has not seen the accused while committing the offence and came to know about it from Pw2. She along with her brother
Babu Rao visited the Government Hospital, Bodhan and she never visited the police station.
16.Adverting to the above evidence, the learned defense counsel would contend that Ex.P1 is brought into existence as the evidence of Pw1 shows that she never visited the police station and she is not a direct witness. I find no substance in this contention. As stated supra, Ex.P1 is not a substantial piece of evidence and it is used to put the criminal law
Page No.10 of 27
SC No.217 of 2024, Asst. Session Judge, Bodhan
Dated 11.04.2025
into motion and for corroboration or contradiction. It is true Pw1 is not a direct witness but this court cannot loose site of the fact that she is wife of Late D.Gangadhar. When the Injured was receiving treatment, the police officials have visited the hospital and at that moment she reported the matter to police. There is no specific set of rules to lodge Ex.P1 in a particular manner. Even if it is assumed that Ex.P1 was received at the hospital it does not affect its credibility. Ex.P1 was lodged immediately after the Incident and it contains the details of the accused and also the weapon used in the commission of the offence. Nothing useful was elicited in the cross-examination of this witness to suggest that she has got animosity with the accused to speak falsehood. Thus she had no oblique motive to name the accused in Ex.P1. This is a strong circumstance pointing against the accused. Her evidence is relevant and admissible under section 8 of Indian Evidence Act and proves the involvement of the accused in the offence.
17.Pw3 is said to be another direct witness to the Incident but his evidence shows that he is an hearsey witness. Thus his evidence is of no use to connect the accused with the offence.
18.Pw2 is related to Pw1 and the Injured Late D.Gangadhar. Pw1 is cousin sister of Pw1. She stated that she is acquainted with the accused. About
Page No.11 of 27
SC No.217 of 2024, Asst. Session Judge, Bodhan
Dated 11.04.2025
one and half year back at about 12.00 noon she was consuming toddy in shop No.1 of Bodhan. Lw4/Gangadhar was entering inside the toddy shop. The accused was also present in the said shop and consuming toddy. When Lw4/Gangadhar entered inside the shop he fell on the accused. Immediately, the accused with a knife caused injury on the neck of Lw4/Gangadhar by pushing him towards the tin shed.
Meanwhile, she came out of the shop and informed the incident to Pw1 as there is house is situated behind the petrol bunk about one kilometer away from the toddy shop. Pw1 also came to the shop and shifted her husband to Government Hospital, Bodhan. She also accompanied her.
She identified the knife used in the commission of offence. In her cross examination she stated that there is a toddy shop at Bellal and all the residents of Bellal village consume toddy at the above shop. On the particular day she visited her mother’s house situated at Gupta petrol bunk and as such visited toddy shop No.1. Pw1 along with her brother,
Lw3/Babu Rao came near the toddy shop. Generally, about 40 people are present in the toddy shop consuming toddy regularly. She denied that the accused did not commit the offence and Lw4/Gangadhar fell down on the ground an came in contract with a broken glass piece and received injuries and in order to help the toddy shop owner from criminal case the accused is implicated. She further denied that on the particular
Page No.12 of 27
SC No.217 of 2024, Asst. Session Judge, Bodhan
Dated 11.04.2025
day she was not present at the scene of offence and was present at
Bellal. Bellal is four kilometers away from Bodhan.
19.When the entire evidence of Pw2 is considered, it is understood that she is related to Pw1 and there is a toddy shop at Bellal and the villagers used to consume toddy in the said shop and there is a toddy shop No.1 at Bodhan near Gupta petrol bunk and generally about 40 people are present in the said shop. On the particular day she came down to
Bodhan to meet her mother and as such visited the scene of offence toddy shop to consume toddy and witnessed the incident.
20.The learned defense counsel tried to discredit the evidence of Pw2 by pointing out contradictions in her evidence with that of the evidence of
Pw1 and also on a ground that she is related to Pw1 and her evidence is improbable. This court on scrutiny of entire evidence of Pw2 has found her evidence is within the ring of truth and there is nothing to disbelieve her. It is true this witness is related to Pw1, but she has got no animosity to implicate the accused and to see that he is put behind the bars. No such instances are brought on record in her evidence.
Thus it can be safely concluded that this witness in not an interested witness. No general statement can be made that women do not consume alcohol at 12.00 noon. The presence of Pw2 at the scene of
Page No.13 of 27
SC No.217 of 2024, Asst. Session Judge, Bodhan
Dated 11.04.2025
offence is believable. She has visited her mother’s house and at 12.00 noon she visited the toddy shop No.1. This witness was not discredited to suggest that her mothers house is not situated near the scene of offence and that she was present else where. She omitted to state that on the particular day she visited her mother’s house but in my view it is not a omission at all. As this fact was not spoken by her in her chief examination and it was her explanation for her presence at the scene of offence which is convincing. There are certain minor contradictions in her evidence and the evidence of Pw1 and Pw3, which do not got to the root of the proseution case and are not fatal. The evidence of Pw1 shows that after coming to know about the Incident she visited the
Government Hospital, Bodhan and whereas the evidence of Pw2 shows that Pw1 has visited the scene of offence and shifted her husband to the hospital. The said contradiction is trivial in nature.
21.The learned defense counsel relied upon Raju’s case supra, and argued that the evidence of Pw2 cannot be relied upon as it is inconsistent with the evidence of Pws.1 and 3. I have perused the above authority and with due respect state that the above judgment did not laid down any proposition of law, but it is held that when there are inherent contradictions in the evidence of the prosecution witness it is unsafe to sustain conviction. In the instant matter, no such inherent contradictions
Page No.14 of 27
SC No.217 of 2024, Asst. Session Judge, Bodhan
Dated 11.04.2025
are found to doubt the evidence of Pw2. Thus, the evidence of Pw2 is relied upon and it proves the involvement of the accused in the offence.
22.The medical evidence on record is in complete confirmation with the oral testimony of Pws.1 to 3. The medical evidence on record as stated supra proves that Lw4/D.Gangadhar on 08.06.2024 at about 12.00 noon has received a lacerated injury on his left side of neck. Pws.1 and 2 in one voice stated that Gangadhar received lacerated injury on his neck in the hands of the accused. The lacerated injury under Ex.P5 is possible with a knife and no alternative view can be taken.
23.Prosecution also relied and proved the recovery of MO.1 from the possession of the accused. According to the prosecution, on 08.06.2024 i.e., on the date of incident Pw8 apprehended the accused at
Gurugovindsingh Nagar and recorded his confession statement in the presence of two mediators and basing on his confession statement recovered MO.1. In order to prove this fact, though the prosecution relied upon the evidence of both the panchas, Pws.5 and 6 but unfortunately these witnesses have totally turned hostile. However the evidence of Pw8 clearly shows and proves this fact. He spoke about these facts and produced MO.1 before this court. It is pertinent to mention that recovery of material object can be proved even by the
Page No.15 of 27
SC No.217 of 2024, Asst. Session Judge, Bodhan
Dated 11.04.2025
evidence of the investigation officer and there is no embargo in law. It is true MO.1 is available in open market but it is equally true no circumstances are brought on record to show that MO.1 is implanted by
Pw8 with some oblique motive.
24.Pw8 is the investigation officer and he has conducted the Investigation fairly. There are certain omissions in the investigation but in my view they are not fatal to disbelieve the entire case of prosecution. He spoke about the issuance of FIR and the investigation conducted by him. In cross examination he admitted that he did not sent MO.1 to the Forensic
Science Laboratory to ascertain the presence of human blood on it. He did not collect the control earth from the scene of offence. He did not examine the toddy shop owner. He did not produce documents to show the existence of toddy shop. He denied the case set up by the accused.
In view of the voluminous evidence available on record i.e., Pws.1 to 3 and the medical evidence, the aforesaid omissions can be ignored.
Lw4/D.Gangadhar was cited as a witness but unfortunately he has died.
No Independent witness were examined by Pw8, but at the same time no instances are brought on record to suggest the the accused is implicated for oblique motive.
Page No.16 of 27
SC No.217 of 2024, Asst. Session Judge, Bodhan
Dated 11.04.2025
25.For the foregoing discussion this court holds that on 08.06.2024 at 12.00 noon the accused with MO.1 has caused a lacerated injury on the left side neck of Late D.Gangadhar.
26.Now the question before this court is whether the accused had the intention to commit murder of Late D.Gangadhar. In order to answer this controversy, it is apt to refer to section 307 of IPC and the authorities dealing with it.
27.Section 307 of the Penal Code reads thus:
307. Attempt to murder.—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 herein
before mentioned. Attempts by life convicts.—When any person
offending under this section is under sentence of imprisonment for life, he may, if hurt is caused, be punished with death.
28.The first part of section 307 refers to “an act with such intention or knowledge, and under such circumstances that, if he by that act caused death, he would be guilty of murder”. The second part of Section 307, which carries a heavier punishment, refers to “hurt‟ caused in pursuance of such an “act‟.
Page No.17 of 27
SC No.217 of 2024, Asst. Session Judge, Bodhan
Dated 11.04.2025
29.Several judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India have interpreted Section 307 of the Penal Code.
30.In Crl. Appeal No.1589 of 2018, The state of Madhaya Pradesh Vs.
Veruskanha @ Omprakash, The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has reinterated that proof of grievous or life-threatening hurt is not a sine qua non for the offence under Section 307 of the Penal Code. The intention of the accused can be ascertained from the actual injury, if any, as well as from surrounding circumstances. Among other things, the nature of the weapon used and the severity of the blows inflicted can be considered to infer intent.
31.In Jage Ram v State of Haryana, (2015) 11 SCC 366 the Hon’ble
Supreme Court of India has held that to establish the commission of an offence under Section 307, it is not essential that a fatal injury capable of causing death should have been inflicted: “12.For the purpose of conviction under Section 307 IPC, the prosecution has to establish (i) the intention to commit murder; and (ii) the act done by the accused.
The burden is on the prosecution that the accused had attempted to commit the murder of the prosecution witness. Whether the accused person intended to commit murder of another person would depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. To justify a conviction
Page No.18 of 27
SC No.217 of 2024, Asst. Session Judge, Bodhan
Dated 11.04.2025
under Section 307 IPC, it is not essential that fatal injury capable of causing death should have been caused. Although the nature of injury actually caused may be of assistance in coming to a finding as to the intention of the accused, such intention may also be adduced from other circumstances. The intention of the accused is to be gathered from the circumstances like the nature of the weapon used, words used by the accused at the time of the incident, motive of the accused, parts of the body where the injury was caused and the nature of injury and severity of the blows given, etc.”.
32.In State of M P v Saleem, (2005) 5 SCC 554, the Hon’ble Supreme
Court has held thus; “13. 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 IPC cannot be acquitted merely because the injuries inflicted on the victim were in the nature of a simple hurt.”(Emphasissupplied).
Page No.19 of 27
SC No.217 of 2024, Asst. Session Judge, Bodhan
Dated 11.04.2025
33.In State of Maharashtra v Balram Bama Patil, (1983) 2 SCC 28,the
Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, has held that it is not necessary that a
bodily injury sufficient under normal circumstances to cause death should have been inflicted: “9...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 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 this 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.”(Emphasissupplied). This position in law was followed by subsequent benches of this Court.
Page No.20 of 27
SC No.217 of 2024, Asst. Session Judge, Bodhan
Dated 11.04.2025
34.The above judgments lead to the conclusion that proof of grievous or life-threatening hurt is not asine qua non for the offence under Section 307 of the Penal Code. The intention of the accused can be ascertained from the actual injury, if any, as well as from surrounding circumstances.
Among other things, the nature of the weapon used and the severity of the blows inflicted can be considered to infer intent.
35.The learned defence counsel relied upon Ramgopal’s case supra and would contend that as the accused had no intention to commit murder of
Late D.Gangadhar, conviction under section 307 of IPC cannot be sustained. I have perused the said judgment and with due respect found that the said case has got no application to the case on hand. The facts of the said case are entirely different from the facts on hand. In the said case the prosecution failed to prove the motive and also failed to recover poison and in those circumstances the accused was acquitted.
In the instant matter, the accused with MO.1/knife has caused a simple lacerated injury on the left side neck of Late D.Gangadhar. If he had intention to murder Late D.Gangadhar, he would have stabbed him or caused multiple injuries which was not done. Thus when the total facts and circumstances of the case are considered, this court holds that the accused had no intention to commit murder of Late D.Gangadhar.
However, his act constitutes an offence under section 324 of IPC which is reproduced for ready reference hereunder.
Page No.21 of 27
SC No.217 of 2024, Asst. Session Judge, Bodhan
Dated 11.04.2025
S ec . 324 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.
36.No charge was framed for the offence under section 324 of IPC, but even in its absence this court can convict the accused for the said offence by taking aid of section 222 of Code of Cr.P.C. In my view the offence under section 324 of IPC is a minor offence for the offence under section 307 of IPC. Thus the accused is convicted for the said offence.
37.In the result, accused is found not guilty for the offence under section 307 of IPC and accordingly he is acquitted for the said offence under section 235(1) Cr.P.C., but he is found guilty for the offence under section 324 of IPC and accordingly convicted for the said offence under section 222 of Cr.P.C. His bail bonds stands cancelled forthwith.
Note: MO.1 shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal period.
Dictated to Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court, on
this the 11 th day of April, 2025.
Assistant Sessions Judge, Bodhan.
Page No.22 of 27
SC No.217 of 2024, Asst. Session Judge, Bodhan
Dated 11.04.2025
38.Heard the convict with regard to quantum of sentence. He submits that he has got small kids, aged 4 years, 5 years and 6 years respectively and he is the sole bread earner of the family. He is suffering from joint pains. The learned counsel for the convict would submit that provisions of Probation of Offenders Act may be applied as the convict is the first offender.
39.The convict with MO.1 has caused simple injury to Late D.Gangadhar.
Considering the fact that he is the first offender and he is the sole bread earner and has got small childrens to look after, this court is inclined to take a lenient view. Section 324 of IPC attracts punishment up to two three years or with fine. Thus this court is inclined to sentence the convict to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) and in default to pay the said fine amount he shall suffer simple imprisonment for a period of three months. Out of the aforesaid fine amount,
Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) shall be paid to Pw1 towards compensation under section 357(3) of Cr.P.C. One month time is granted to the convict to pay the said fine. If the convict fails to pay the fine amount, he shall be arrested and brought before this court for undergoing the sentence. The period of imprisonment already undergone by the convict from 08-06-2024 to 03-07-2024 shall be set off under section 428 of Cr.P.C.
Page No.23 of 27
SC No.217 of 2024, Asst. Session Judge, Bodhan
Dated 11.04.2025
40.The convict is enlightened about his right to prefer an appeal before the
Hon’ble Principal District and Sessions Judge, Nizamabad and free
legal services provided by the District Legal Services Authority,
Nizamabad. He is also appraised about his right to bail for (30) days to prefer an appeal.
41.Office is directed to furnish a free copy of the judgment forthwith to the convict under proper acknowledgment.
Dictated to Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court, on
this the 11 th day of April, 2025.
Assistant Sessions Judge, Bodhan
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED
For Prosecution: For defense: Pw1: D.Laxmi-Nil- Pw2: R.Gangamani Pw3: Ch.Babu Rao Pw4: K.Srikanth Pw5: P.Srinivas Reddy Pw6: P.Abbaiah Pw7: Dr.MD.Aleemuddin Pw8: S.Veeraiah, IO
DOCUMENTS MARKED
For Prosecution: For defense: Ex.P1: Report-Nil- Ex.P2: Signature of Pw4 on crime detail form Ex.P3: Signature of Pw5 on confession cum seizure panchanama
Page No.24 of 27
SC No.217 of 2024, Asst. Session Judge, Bodhan
Dated 11.04.2025
Ex.P4: Signature of Pw6 on confession cum seizure panchanama Ex.P5: Wound certificate Ex.P6: First Information Report Ex.P7: Crime detail form Ex.P8: Relevant portion in confession statement of accused
MATERIAL OBJECTS
MO-1 : Knife
Assistant Sessions Judge, Bodhan
Page No.25 of 27
SC No.217 of 2024, Asst. Session Judge, Bodhan
Dated 11.04.2025
IN THE COURT OF THE ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE, BODHAN
Present :- Ajay Kumar Devan, Assistant Sessions Judge, Bodhan
Friday, this the 11th day of April, 2025
Sessions Case No.217 of 2024
(CALENDAR & JUDGMENT)
1Name of Complainant::The State represented by Police, P.S. Bodhan Town.
2Description of the accused::Jeevan Singh s/o.Mohan Singh, aged 68 years, Occ: Coolie, r/o.Gurugovind Nagar, Bodhan.
3Offence::U/s.307 of Indian Penal Code.
4Plea of Accused::Pleaded not guilty 5Finding::The accused is found not guilty for the offence U/s.307 of IPC and accordingly he is acquitted U/s.235(1) Cr.P.C., but found guilty U/s.324 of IPC and accordingly convicted U/s.222 of Cr.P.C.
6Date of Occurrence::08-06-2024 7Date of Report/Complaint::08-06-2024 8Date of Apprehension::08-06-2024 9Date of Release::03-07-2024 10 Date of Commencement of ::03-03-2025 trial 11 Date of Close of trial::10-03-2025 12 Date of Judgment.::11-04-2025 13 Explanation for delay::No delay 14 Sentence or Order::The accused is found not guilty for the offence under section 307 of IPC and accordingly he is acquitted for the said offence under section 235(1) Cr.P.C., but he is found guilty for the offence
Page No.26 of 27
SC No.217 of 2024, Asst. Session Judge, Bodhan
Dated 11.04.2025
under section 324 of IPC and accordingly convicted for the said offence under section 222 of Cr.P.C. His bail bonds stands cancelled forthwith. MO.1 shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal period.
Heard the convict with regard to quantum of sentence. Considering the facts and circumstances, this court is inclined to sentence the convict to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) and in default to pay the said fine amount he shall suffer simple imprisonment for a period of three months. Out of the aforesaid fine amount, Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) shall be paid to Pw1 towards compensation under section 357(3) of Cr.P.C. One month time is granted to the convict to pay the said fine. If the convict fails to pay the fine amount, he shall be arrested and brought before this court for undergoing the sentence. The period of imprisonment already undergone by the convict from 08-06-2024 to 03-07-2024 shall be set off under section 428 of Cr.P.C.
Assistant Sessions Judge, Bodhan Copy submitted to: The Hon'ble Principal District and Sessions Judge, Nizamabad.
Copy to:
1. Commissioner of Police, Nizamabad.
2. The Judicial First Class Magistrate, Bodhan.
3. Additional Public Prosecutor.
Page No.27 of 27