Supreme Court of India
SADAKAT KOTWAR AND ANR. versus THE STATE OF JHARKHAND on 12 November 2021
332
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 7 S.C.R.
SADAKAT KOTWAR AND ANR.
A
v.
THE STATE OF JHARKHAND
(Criminal Appeal No. 1316 of 2021)
BNOVEMBER 12, 2021
[M. R. SHAH AND A. S. BOPANNA, JJ.]
Penal Code, 1860: s.307 r/w s.34 – Grievous injuries on vitalparts of the body – Prosecution case was that appellant no.1 stabbedPW-7 with a dagger in her ribs and appellant no.2 stabbed PW-8Cwith a dagger on right side of his stomach and on left ribs – TrialCourt convicted appellants-accused for offence under s.307 r/ws.34 – High Court upheld the order of conviction – On appeal,held: There was no reason to doubt the testimony of the witnessesparticularly PW7 and PW8 who were injured eye-witnesses – It wasDnot the case of appellants-accused that the offence occurred out ofa sudden quarrel or that the blow was stuck in the heat of the moment– As the deadly weapons were used and injuries were grievous innature causing injury near chest and stomach which can be said tobe vital part of the body, appellants were rightly convicted unders.307 r/w s.34 – Concurrent findings recorded by the courts belowEholding the appellants guilty do not require any interference inexercise of powers under Art.136 of the Constitution of India.
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
HELD: It is not the case of the accused that the offenceFoccurred out of a sudden quarrel. It also does not appear that theblow was stuck in the heat of the moment. On the contrary,considering the depositions of PW7 and PW8, the accused personspushed and took the husband of PW7 out of the house andthereafter the accused caused the injuries on PW7 and PW8 andstabbed dagger. Thus, deadly weapons were used and the injuriesGare found to be grievous in nature. As observed by this Court incatena of decisions nobody can enter into the mind of the accusedand his intention has to be ascertained from the weapon used,part of the body chosen for assault and the nature of the injurycaused. Considering the case on hand on the said principles, when H
the deadly weapon – dagger has been used, there was a stabinjury on the stomach and near the chest which can be said to beon the vital part of the body and the nature of injuries caused, itis rightly held that the appellants have committed the offenceunder Section 307 IPC. [Para 4][335-F-H; 336-A-B]
State of M.P. v. Mansingh (2003) 10 SCC 414 : [2003]2 Suppl. SCR 460 – relied on.
Jai Narain Mishra and Ors. v. State of Bihar (1971) 3SCC 762 – held inapplicable.
Mahesh Balmiki v. State of M.P. (2000) 1 SCC 319 –referred to.
Case Law Reference
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No.1316 of 2021.
From the Judgment and Order dated 01.07.2019 of the High Courtof Jharkhand at Ranchi in Criminal Appeal (SJ) No. 393 of 2004.
Shree Prakash Sinha, Ms. Mohua Sinha, Rakesh Mishra,Nawalendra Kumar, Shekhar Kumar, Advs. for the Appellants.
Arunabh Chowdhury, AAG, Ms. Barnali Chowdhury, Ms. PragyaBaghel, Shantanu Sagar, Vishnu Sharma, Abhishek Roy, Advs. for theRespondent.
The Judgement of the Court was delivered by
M. R. SHAH, J.
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
3
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgmentand order dated 01.07.2019 passed by the High Court of Jharkhand atRanchi in Criminal Appeal (SJ) No. 393 of 2004 by which the HighCourt has upheld the conviction of the appellants herein for the offencesunder Section 307 read with Section 34 of the IPC, the original accusedhave preferred the present appeal.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
A2. We have gone through the impugned judgment and order passedby the High Court as well as the judgment and order passed by thelearned Trial Court convicting the accused for the offences under Section307 read with Section 34 of the IPC. The prosecution as such hasexamined in all 10 witnesses in support of the case of the prosecution,out of which, there are two injured eye-witnesses PW7 and PW8. BothBof them have supported the case of the prosecution. Even the otherwitnesses examined by the prosecution i.e. PW1, PW2, PW4 and PW10are consistent in their statements and have fully supported the case ofthe prosecution. The prosecution has been successful in proving thecase against the accused that Appellant No.2 - Refaz Kotwar stabbedCPW8 - Mohd. Jamil Kotwar with a dagger on the right side of his stomachand on left ribs and that PW7 was also stabbed by Appellant No.1 -Sadakat Kotwar with a dagger in her ribs. We see no reason to doubtthe testimony of the witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecutionmore particularly, PW7 and PW8 who are the injured eye-witnesses. Itis required to be noted that PW7 and PW8 are the injured eye-witnesses.DAs held by this Court in the case of State of M.P. vs. Mansingh,(2003) 10 SCC 414 para 9, the evidence of an injured eye-witness hasgreat evidentiary value and unless compelling reasons exist, theirstatements are not to be discarded lightly. There are concurrent findingsrecorded by the courts below holding the appellants – original accusedEguilty which do not require any interference by this Court in exercise ofpowers under Article 136 of the Constitution of India.
3. Now so far as the submissions on behalf of the appellants thatat the most the case may fall under Section 323 of the IPC and therefore,the courts below have erred in convicting the accused for the offenceFunder Section 307 IPC is concerned, it is the case on behalf of theappellants that it was a case of single blow/injury. However, it is requiredto be noted that the injury of a single blow was on the vital part of thebody i.e. stomach and near chest. Nature of the injury is a grievousinjury caused by a sharp cutting weapon. The following injuries werefound on Jamil Kotwar:G
“Incised wound 1”x1"x muscle deep with Haematoma formation4"x3" area in 4[th] and 5[th] inter costal space in mid axillary region ofleft axial.”
The following injuries were found on Samsera Bibi:
H
“Incised wound 1”x1/2"x pleura deep in 8[th] inter costal space midclericular line of left half of chest.”
Thus, the nature of injuries was found to be grievous caused bysharp cutting instrument.
4. In the case of Mahesh Balmiki vs. State of M.P., (2000) 1SCC 319 in paragraph 9 it is held as under:
“9 . ... there is no principle that in all cases of a single blow Section302 Indian Penal Code is not attracted. A single blow may, insome cases, entail conviction Under Section 302 Indian PenalCode, in some cases Under Section 304 Indian Penal Code and insome other cases Under Section 326 Indian Penal Code. Thequestion with regard to the nature of offence has to be determinedon the facts and in the circumstances of each case. The nature ofthe injury, whether it is on the vital or non-vital part of the body,the weapon used, the circumstances in which the injury is causedand the manner in which the injury is inflicted are all relevantfactors which may go to determine the required intention orknowledge of the offender and the offence committed by him. Inthe instant case, the deceased was disabled from saving himselfbecause he was held by the associates of the Appellant whoinflicted though a single yet a fatal blow of the description notedabove. These facts clearly establish that the Appellant had theintention to kill the deceased. In any event, he can safely beattributed the knowledge that the knife-blow given by him was soimminently dangerous that it must in all probability cause death orsuch bodily injury as is likely to cause death.”
4.1 It is not the case of the accused that the offence occurred outof a sudden quarrel. It also does not appear that the blow was stuck inthe heat of the moment. On the contrary, considering the depositions ofPW7 and PW8 the accused persons pushed and took the husband ofPW7 out of the house and thereafter the accused caused the injuries onPW7 and PW8 and stabbed dagger. Thus, deadly weapons have beenused and the injuries are found to be grievous in nature. As the deadlyweapon has been used causing the injury near the chest and stomachwhich can be said to be on vital part of the body, the appellants havebeen rightly convicted for the offence under Section 307 read with Section34 of the IPC. As observed and held by this Court in catena of decisions A
B
C
DE
F
G
H
Anobody can enter into the mind of the accused and his intention has to beascertained from the weapon used, part of the body chosen for assaultand the nature of the injury caused. Considering the case on hand on theaforesaid principles, when the deadly weapon – dagger has been used,there was a stab injury on the stomach and near the chest which can besaid to be on the vital part of the body and the nature of injuries caused,Bit is rightly held that the appellants have committed the offence underSection 307 IPC.
5. We are in complete agreement with the view taken by thelearned Trial Court as well as the High Court. Now so far as the relianceplaced upon the decision of this Court in Jai Narain Mishra and Ors.CVs. State of Bihar, (1971) 3 SCC 762 is concerned, on facts such decisionshall not be applicable more particularly considering the subsequentdecisions as well as the weapon used, nature of injuries caused on thevital part of the body.
In view of the above and for the reasons stated hereinabove, theDpresent appeal fails and the same deserves to be dismissed and isaccordingly dismissed.
E
Devika Gujral
Appeal dismissed.
F
G
H