STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH versus HARJEET SINGH & ANR. on 19 February 2019

SUPREME COURT REPORTS

[2019] 4 S.C.R.

STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

A

v.

HARJEET SINGH & ANR.

(Criminal Appeal No. 1190 of 2009)

BFEBRUARY 19, 2019

[L. NAGESHWARA RAO AND INDU MALHOTRA, JJ.]

Penal Code, 1860 – ss.307 & 324 – Complainant case wasthat he and his brothers were attacked by accused/respondent No.1,accused/respondent no.2 and an unidentified person – ComplainantCalleged that accused/respondent No.1 stabbed him several timeswith a knife – Trial court convicted the accused/respondent no.1u/s.307 IPC and accused/respondent No.2 was convicted u/s. 307r/w. 34 IPC – High Court converted the conviction of the accused/respondent no.1 from s.307 IPC to s.324 IPC and accused/Drespondent No.2 was acquitted – On appeal, held: In instant case,a perusal of facts and the record clearly indicate that the prosecutionhas proved beyond reasonable doubt that accused/respondent No.1had inflicted four injuries on the complainant by using a knife –The multiple blows inflicted would prove the intention of causingbodily injury likely to cause death of the victim – Stabbing a personEwith a knife, near his vital organs would in most circumstances leadto the death of the victim, thereby falling squarely within the meaningof s.307 IPC – The findings of the High Court that injuries inflictedwere on ‘unimportant parts’ of the complainant’s body was erroneous– Thus, judgment of the High Court qua accused/respondent No.1Fset aside – Insofar, accused/respondent No.2 is concerned, the HighCourt was right that there was lack of consistency in the depositionof the prosecution witnesses with respect to the role of the accused/respondent No.2 – Thus, Judgment of High Court qua respondentNo.2 confirmed.

GDisposing of the appeal, the Court

HELD: 1. In the present case, a perusal of the facts andthe record clearly indicate that the prosecution has proved beyondreasonable doubt that Accused /Respondent No. 1 had inflictedfour injuries, on the Complainant by using a knife. The oral H

testimonies of P.W. 4 and P.W. 5 – the brothers of the Complainantwho were eye witnesses, stood corroborated by the medicalevidence. [Para 5.1] [572-B-C]

2. The act of stabbing a person with a sharp knife, which isa dangerous weapon, near his vital organs, would ordinarily leadto the death of the victim. The weapon of offence was a 4-inchlong knife which is a dangerous weapon. The Accused /Respondent No. 1 had assaulted the Complainant with the saidknife, and inflicted multiple injuries on his chest, scapula, back,and buttocks. The multiple blows inflicted by the Accused /Respondent No. 1 would prove the intention of causing bodilyinjury likely to cause the death of the victim. Stabbing a personwith a knife, near his vital organs would in most circumstanceslead to the death of the victim, thereby falling squarely within themeaning of Section 307. Section 307 uses the term “hurt” whichhas been explained in Section 319, I.P.C.; and not “grievous hurt”within the meaning of Section 320 I.P.C. If a person causes hurtwith the intention or knowledge that he may cause death, it wouldattract Section 307. [Para 5.6] [573-C-F]

3. If the assailant acts with the intention or knowledge thatsuch action might cause death, and hurt is caused, then theprovisions of Section 307 I.P.C. would be applicable. There is norequirement for the injury to be on a “vital part” of the body,merely causing ‘hurt’ is sufficient to attract S. 307 I.P.C.[Para 5.6] [574-C-D]

4. In the Impugned Judgment, the High Court incorrectlyheld that the Prosecution has been unable to prove that theAccused /Respondent No. 1 had the intention to commit murderof the Complainant. The motive of assault by the Accused/Respondent No. 1 on the Complainant-P.W. 2 was clearlyestablished by the Prosecution, since there was an existingdispute which was the subject matter of a court case. It is evidentfrom the evidence adduced before the Court, and thecircumstances surrounding the case, that the prosecution hasbeen able to prove the case against Accused /Respondent No. 1beyond reasonable doubt. The prosecution has successfullyproved that the Accused /Respondent No. 1 had attempted to A

BC

D

E

F

G

H

Amurder the Complainant and the requirements of Section 307are made out from the ocular evidence which are corroboratedby the medical evidence. [Paras 5.8 and 5.9] [575-D-G]

5. In so far as the case against Accused /RespondentNo. 2 is concerned; the prosecution has not been able to proveBbeyond reasonable doubt the charge under Section 307 r. w.Section 34 I.P.C. The High Court has rightly held that there islack of consistency in the deposition of the Prosecution witnesseswith respect to the role of the Accused /Respondent No. 2.[Para 7] [576-C}

CR. Prakash v. State of Karnataka (2004) 9 SCC 27:[2004] 2 SCR 281;Jage Ram v. State of Haryana(2015) 11 SCC 366 : [2015] 11 SCR 1004;State ofM.P. v. Kanha @ Omprakash 2019 (2) SCALE 454 –relied on.

DState of Madhya Pradesh v. Mohan & Ors,(2013) 14SCC 116 : [2013] 7 SCR 802 – referred to.

FCRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal AppealNo. 1190 of 2009.

From the Judgment and Order dated 03.01.2006 of the High Courtof Madhya Pradesh, Jabalpur, Bench at Gwalior in Criminal AppealNo. 657 of 1998.

GVarun K. Chopra, Mrs. Swarupama Chaturvedi, Gurtej Pal Singh,B. N. Dubey, Mukesh Kumar, Ms. Indira Bhakar, Ms. Aparna Trivedi,Shantanu Singh, Advs. for the Appellant.

Sanjiv Das, Ekansh Bansal, Parmanand Gaur, Advs. for theRespondents.

H

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by INDU MALHOTRA, J. 1. The present Criminal Appeal hasbeen filed by the State of Madhya Pradesh against the judgment andorder dated 03.01.2006 passed by the Gwalior Bench of the MadhyaPradesh High Court, in Criminal Appeal No. 657/1998. The CriminalAppeal was filed by the Respondents against their conviction underSection 307 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as “Section307”). The High Court reduced the conviction of the Respondents fromSection 307 to Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referredto as “Section 324”).

2. The facts of the case, briefly stated, are as under:

2.1 The case of the Complainant – Sukhdev, as recorded in theF.I.R., is that on 12.11.1997 the Complainant-Sukhdev alongwith his brothers – Balveer Yadav and Deshraj Yadav, had goneto the District Court, Ashok Nagar to attend the hearing of theircase against Accused /Respondent No. 1 – Harjeet Singh.After the hearing, at around noon, the Complainant –Sukhdevand his brothers crossed the road, and were standing in front ofthe Jail, when Ramji Lal – Accused /Respondent No. 2 alongwithan unidentified assailant called Sardar caught hold of BalveerYadav and Deshraj Yadav. The Accused /Respondent No. 1–Harjeet Singh grabbed the Complainant – Sukhdev, and stabbedhim several times with a knife, inflicting blows on the chest,scapula, back, and hips.

Accused /Respondent Nos. 1 and 2, alongwith Sardar ran away from the spot. The Complainant – Sukhdev further stated thathe would be able to identify Harjeet Singh, and the twoassailants once he sees them.

2.2 Immediately after the assault on 12.11.1997, the Complainant –Sukhdev was admitted to the Civil Hospital, Ashok Nagar fortreatment.

2.3 The medical examination of the Complainant – Sukhdev wasconducted by Dr. M. Bhagat–P.W.6 at the Civil Hospital, AshokNagar, which recorded the following injuries :

(i) Stab Wound – 3.5 x 1 cm –deep in the chest cavity, over the left side of the chest.

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

A (ii) Spindle shaped incised wound – 3 x 2 cm –muscle deep, present on the upper region of the right buttocks.

(iii) Stab Wound – 2 x 1 cm – over sub-scapula region, left side. Bleeding was present.

(iv) Stab Wound – 1 x 1 cm – over illeal region of hip, left side.B Bleeding was present.

The medical report further stated that the injuries were caused by asharp-edged, pointed object.

2.4 The Complainant – Sukhdev was referred to the DistrictCHospital, Guna wherein X-Ray of his chest region wasconducted by P.W. 8 – Dr. Raghuvanshi. The Report statesthat there was”haziness in lungs, left side of chest, presentdue to trauma of chest”.

Dr. Raghuvanshi – P.W. 8 stated in his deposition that the lungsDof the Complainant – Sukhdev suffered injury, which resulted inblood seeping in the lungs, leading to haziness in the X-Rayimage.

2.5 On 24.11.1997, the Accused /Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 werearrested by the Police. The weapon of offence i.e. the knifeallegedly used by Accused /Respondent No. 1 was recoveredEfrom the bushes next to the bridge, on the statement given byAccused /Respondent No. 1.

2.6 The Spot Map of the crime scene was prepared, samples ofblood-stained soil, and ordinary soil, were recovered from thescene of the crime.F

2.7 The Accused /Respondent No. 1 was charged under Section307, while Accused /Respondent No. 2 was charged underSection 307 read with Section 34 of the I.P.C.

2.8 The case was registered as Case No. 10/98 before the FirstGAddl. Sessions Judge, Ashok Nagar, Guna District, MadhyaPradesh (Sessions Court).

2.9 The Sessions Court vide Judgment dated 30.11.1998, foundAccused /Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 guilty of the offence of‘attempt to murder’. The findings of the Sessions Court wereas follows:H

i. The Complainant –Sukhdev, and his brothers – Deshraj Yadavand Balveer Yadav who were eye-witnesses of the crime, andwere present at the scene of occurrence, and were examinedby the Court as P.W.s 2, 4, and 5 respectively. Their evidencewas held to be reliable, and was corroborated by theexamination of P.W. 3 – an independent witness who was anAdvocate. P.W. 3 appeared before the Court, and deposed thaton 12.11.1997 he heard a commotion outside the Court. Onreaching the spot, he found the Complainant – Sukhdev(P.W. 2) lying in a pool of blood. On further inquiry, he was toldthat the Accused /Respondent No. 1 – Harjeet Singh had stabbedthe Complainant – Sukhdev (P.W. 2) multiple times.

ii. The medical evidence was held to be sufficient to prove that theinjuries inflicted by Accused /Respondent No. 1 upon theComplainant – Sukhdev (P.W. 2) could be fatal.

iii. With respect to Accused /Respondent No. 2 – Ramji Lal, theF.I.R. stated that the Accused /Respondent No. 2 along withan unidentified Sardar held the brothers of the Complainant(P.W.s 4 and 5), while the Accused /Respondent No. 1 stabbedthe Complainant – Sukhdev (P.W. 2) multiple times.

iv. During the trial, the Complainant – Sukhdev (P.W. 2) deposedthat Accused /Respondent No. 2 – Ramji Lal grabbed him whenAccused /Respondent No. 1 – Harjeet Singh stabbed himmultiple times.

v. The Sessions Court held the prosecution had proved the casebeyond reasonable doubt.

It was held that the Accused /Respondent No. 2 would be equally guilty. The common intention of Accused /RespondentNo.2 was proved by the assistance provided by him toAccused / Respondent No. 1, in committing the offence.

vi. The Sessions Court convicted the Accused /Respondent No. 1under Section 307, sentencing him to 5 years R.I. along with aFine of Rs. 1000/-.

Accused /Respondent No. 2 was convicted under Section 307

read with Section 34 I.P.C. and sentenced to 5 years R.I. alongwith a fine of Rs. 1000/-.

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

A2.10 Both the Accused /Respondents filed a common appeal tochallenge their conviction by the judgment dated 30.11.1998before the Madhya Pradesh High Court being Criminal AppealNo. 657/1998.

2.11 The Madhya Pradesh High Court vide Impugned JudgmentBdated 03.01.2006 partly allowed the Appeal filed by theAccused / Respondents. It was held that the Complainant –Sukhdev (P.W. 2) had nowhere stated in his deposition/evidencethat the intention of the Accused /Respondents was to commitmurder.

C The High Court held that the Complainant – Sukhdev (P.W. 2)suffered four injuries. One of the injuries was on the left side ofthe chest. The depth of this injury was upto the cavity over theleft side of the chest, but the lung was not affected. The otherthree injuries sustained by the Complainant – Sukhdev, are onthe back, and the hips. The Accused /Respondents having anDintention to commit murder would never cause injuries over such“unimportant” parts of the body.

It was also noted that the knife by which the injuries wereallegedly inflicted had a blade of five fingers which could not bemore than four inches.

E

With regard to the liability of the Accused /Respondent No. 2 –Ramji Lal, the High Court held that there appears to be lack ofconsistency in the statements of the Complainant – Sukhdevand his two brothers who were eye-witnesses :

Fa. The first version of the Complainant – Sukhdev (P.W. 2)which has been written in the Dehati Nalsi, is that theAccused /Respondent No. 2 –Ramji Lal, and one unknownSardar both caught hold of his two brothers. It is notmentioned in this document that Accused /Respondent No. 2– Ramji Lal or the other unknown Sardar, caught hold of himGat the time of the incident. Conversely, in paragraph 2 of hisstatement, the Complainant – Sukhdev has stated that he washeld by Accused /Respondent No. 2 – Ramji Lal at the timeof the incident, and in paragraph 5 he has stated that aftersustaining the injuries of the knife, Accused /RespondentNo. 2 caught hold of his brother Deshraj (P.W. 4).H

b. On the other hand, Deshraj Yadav (P.W. 4) – the first brotherof the Complainant – Sukhdev, has stated that he was beingheld by one unknown Sardar and not by Accused /Respondent No. 2.

c. Balveer Yadav (P.W. 5) – the second brother of theComplainant – Sukhdev, has stated that he was being held byAccused /Respondent No. 2 –Ramji Lal and his brother washeld by one unknown Sardar.

The High Court found that there was no consistency in the deposition of P.Ws 2, 4, and 5 read with the F.I.R.Considering these circumstances, it was held that there couldbe no presumption that Accused /Respondent No. 2 – RamjiLal had committed any act having a common intention withthe Accused /Respondent No. 1 – Harjeet Singh, in causingthe injuries to the Complainant – Sukhdev (P.W. 2).

The mere fact that Accused /Respondent No. 2 hadaccompanied Accused /Respondent No. 1 cannot raise the presumptionof having common intention.

It was further held that it was not justifiable to conclude that theAccused /Respondents had any intention to commit murder, or causesuch injury which could have been deemed as sufficient to cause deathin the ordinary course of nature. At most, the act of causing the injuriescould be held punishable under Section 324, I.P.C. as punishment forvoluntarily causing simple hurt.

The High Court converted the conviction of Accused /Respondent No. 1 from Section 307 to Section 324 I.P.C. and reducedthe sentence to one year R.I. and a Fine of Rs. 1,000. The periodalready undergone would be adjusted in the sentence awarded to him.

Accused /Respondent No. 2 was acquitted and his convictionfrom the charge of Section 307 was set-aside.

3. The State filed the present Special Leave Petition, against theJudgment and Order of the Madhya Pradesh High Court dated03.01.2006. Special leave to appeal was granted vide Order dated08.07.2009.

A

BC

D

E

F

G

H

572SUPREME COURT REPORTS

A4. We have heard learned Counsel for both the parties,considered the submissions, and perused the evidence record.

5. FINDINGSANDANALYSIS

5.1 In the present case, a perusal of the facts and the record clearlyindicate that the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubtBthat Accused /Respondent No. 1 –Harjeet Singh had inflictedfour injuries, on the Complainant by using a knife.

The oral testimonies of Deshraj Yadav (P.W. 4) and BalveerYadav (P.W. 5) – the brothers of the Complainant – Sukhdevwho were eye witnesses, stood corroborated by the medicalCevidence.

5.2 The prosecution also examined an independent witness –Advocate(P.W. 3), who had come to the Court, and afterhearing the commotion, reached the site of occurrence, wherehe found the Complainant – Sukhdev lying in a pool of bloodDalong with his brothers – P.W.s 4 and 5. The independentwitness – Advocate (P.W. 3) deposed that on enquiring furtherabout the matter, he was informed by P.W.s 4 and 5 – thebrothers of the complainant – Sukhdev, that Accused /Respondent No. 1 – Harjeet Singh had attacked and stabbedEthe Complainant.5.3 Dr. Raghuvanshi – the Radiologist (P.W. 8) has stated in hisdeposition that the injury caused to the Complainant - Sukhdevin the chest had resulted in blood seeping into the lungs. TheMedical Report records that the first stab wound was inflictedFon the chest of the Complainant, which injured his lung, andcaused bleeding. Hence, the finding of the High Court that thestab wound on the chest remained upto the depth of the cavityover left side of the chest and the lungs were not affected, isfactually incorrect, and contrary to the medical record.

5.4 The Accused /Respondent No. 1 inflicted other stab wounds onGthe scapula, which were bleeding even at the time when theComplainant – Sukhdev (P.W. 2) was examined at theHospital. There was also a stab wound present on the upperregion of the right buttock, and another one over the illeal regionof the left hip which was bleeding at the time of the medicalHexamination.

STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH v. HARJEET SINGH & ANR.[INDU MALHOTRA, J.]

The injuries inflicted on the Complainant – Sukhdev (P.W. 2)

have been corroborated by the medical evidence on the basis ofthe medical reports and the depositions of Dr. Bhagat (P.W. 6)and Dr. Raghuvanshi (P.W. 8).

Dr. Raghuvanshi (P.W. 8) has stated that the blood seeping in the left lung of the Complainant – Sukhdev (P.W. 2), was due tothe injury sustained on the chest. Such an injury could not beconsidered to be an injury on an “unimportant part” of the body.

The findings of the High Court that the injuries inflicted were on “unimportant parts” of the Complainant’s body, is erroneous.

5.5 The act of stabbing a person with a sharp knife, which is adangerous weapon, near his vital organs, would ordinarily leadto the death of the victim.

The weapon of offence was a 4-inch long knife which is a dangerous weapon. The Accused /Respondent No. 1 hadassaulted the Complainant with the said knife, and inflictedmultiple injuries on his chest, scapula, back, and buttocks. Themultiple blows inflicted by the Accused /Respondent No. 1 wouldprove the intention of causing bodily injury likely to cause thedeath of the victim. Stabbing a person with a knife, near his vitalorgans would in most circumstances lead to the death of thevictim, thereby falling squarely within the meaning of Section307.

5.6 Section 307 uses the term “hurt” which has been explained inSection 319, I.P.C.; and not “grievous hurt” within the meaningof Section 320 I.P.C.

If a person causes hurt with the intention or knowledge that hemay cause death, it would attract Section 307.

This Court in R. Prakash v. State of Karnataka,[1] held that :

“…The first blow was on a vital part, that is on the temporalregion. Even though other blows were on non-vital parts, thatdoes not take away the rigor of Section 307 IPC……. It issufficient to justify a conviction under Section 307 if there ispresent an intent coupled with some overtact in execution A

B

C

DE

F

G

H

SUPREME COURT REPORTS

A

Athereof. It is not essential that bodily injury capable of causingdeath should have been inflicted. Although the nature ofinjury actually caused may often give considerable assistancein coming to a finding as to the intention of the accused, suchintention may also be deduced from other circumstances, andmay even, in some cases, be ascertained without any referenceBat all to actual wounds. The Sections makes a distinctionbetween the act of the accused and its result, if any. The Courthas to see whether the act, irrespective of its result, was donewith the intention or knowledge and under circumstancesmentioned in the Section.”

C

If the assailant acts with the intention or knowledge that suchaction might cause death, and hurt is caused, then the provisions of Section307 I.P.C. would be applicable. There is no requirement for the injury tobe on a “vital part” of the body, merely causing ‘hurt’ is sufficient toattract S. 307 I.P.C.[2]D

This Court in Jage Ram v. State of Haryana[3] held that:

“12. For the purpose of conviction under Section 307 IPC,prosecution has to establish (i) the intention to commit murderand (ii) the act done by the accused. The burden is on theprosecution that accused had attempted to commit the murderEof the prosecution witness. Whether the accused personintended to commit murder of another person would dependupon the facts and circumstances of each case. To justify aconviction under Section 307 IPC, it is not essential that fatalinjury capable of causing death should have been caused.FAlthough the nature of injury actually caused may be ofassistance in coming to a finding as to the intention of theaccused, such intention may also be adduced from othercircumstances. The intention of the accused is to be gatheredfrom the circumstances like the nature of the weapon used,words used by the accused at the time of the incident, motiveGof the accused, parts of the body where the injury was causedand the nature of injury and severity of the blows given etc.”

H

(emphasis supplied)

H

2State of Madhya Pradesh v. Mohan & Ors (2013) 14 SCC 116

3(2015) 11 SCC 366

This Court in the recent decision of State of M.P. v.Kanha @Omprakash[4] held that:

“The above judgements of this Court lead us to the conclusionthat proof of grievous or life-threatening hurt is not a sinequa non for the offence under Section 307 of the Penal Code.The intention of the accused can be ascertained from theactual injury, if any, as well as from surroundingcircumstances. Among other things, the nature of the weaponused and the severity of the blows inflicted can be consideredto infer intent.”

5.7 In view of the above-mentioned findings, it is evident that theingredients of Section 307 have been made out, as the intentionof the Accused /Respondent No. 1 can be ascertained clearlyfrom his conduct, and the circumstances surrounding theoffence.

5.8 In the Impugned Judgment, the High Court incorrectly held thatthe Prosecution has been unable to prove that the Accused /Respondent No. 1 had the intention to commit murder of theComplainant. The motive of assault by the Accused /Respondent No. 1 on the Complainant –Sukhdev (P.W. 2) wasclearly established by the Prosecution, since there was anexisting dispute which was the subject matter of a court case.

5.9 It is evident from the evidence adduced before the Court, andthe circumstances surrounding the case, that the prosecutionhas been able to prove the case against Accused /RespondentNo. 1 beyond reasonable doubt. We find that the prosecutionhas successfully proved that the Accused /Respondent No. 1 –Harjeet Singh had attempted to murder the Complainant –Sukhdeo and the requirements of Section 307 are made out fromthe ocular evidence which are corroborated by the medicalevidence.

5.10 In view of the above-mentioned discussion, the High Courtwas in error in reducing the sentence of Accused /RespondentNo. 1 – Harjeet Singh from Section 307 I.P.C. to Section 324I.P.C., and sentencing him to 1 year R.I. along with Fine ofRs. 1,000.

4Criminal Appeal No. 1589/2018, decided on 04.02.2019.

A

B

C

DEF

G

H

A6. The present Criminal Appeal is partially allowed. The judgmentof the High Court qua Accused /Respondent No. 1, is set-aside, and thesentence awarded to him by the Sessions Judge vide Judgment dated30.11.1998 is restored. The Accused /Respondent No. 1 is directed toundergo the remainder of the 5 year Sentence awarded by the SessionsCourt, and surrender before the Sessions Court, Ashok Nagar, Guna,BM.P. within 2 weeks from the date of this Judgment.

A

7. In so far as the case against Accused /Respondent No. 2 –Ramji Lal is concerned; the prosecution has not been able to provebeyond reasonable doubt the charge under Section 307 r. w. Section 34I.P.C. The High Court has rightly held that there is lack of consistency inCthe deposition of the Prosecution witnesses with respect to the role ofthe Accused /Respondent No. 2 – Ramji Lal.

We affirm the judgment of the High Court qua Accused No. 2,and confirm the Order of acquittal passed in his favour on 03.01.2006.

The Criminal Appeal along with all pending Applications, if any,are disposed of in the above terms.

D

Ordered accordingly.

E

Ankit Gyan

Appeal disposed of.

F

G

H