$ing‘b BencSx BEFORE THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR 1C.G.i CRIMINAL APPEAL No, [1 é O /2006 APPELLANT Siyaram, ag6d about 18 years, (IN JAILI Son of Shri Bishrgam Gond, resident of Pendra, Police Station through — the District Magistrate, Distt. Raipur (Chhattisgarh) CRIMINAL APPEAL UNDER SECTION 374'\OF CZ? THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 / Manpur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh (C.G.) VERSUS RESPONDENT The State of Chhattisgarh, IGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR Criminal Amal No. 460 of 2006 Siya Ram Vs. State of Chhattisgarh JUDGMENT Post for 20. 12.2006 Sdl- ‘ Sunil Kumar Sinha ’ 19. 12.2006' H HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR Criminal meal No. 460 of 2006 Siya Ram Vs. State of Chhattisgarh Shri Yogesh Pandey, counsel for the appellant. Shri M.P.S. Bhatia, Panel Lawyer, for the State. JUDGMENT (20. 12.2006) Sunil Kumar Sinha, J, (1) The appellant has preferred this eppeal challenging the canviction and sentence awarded to him on 03.4.2005 in Sessions Trial No.400/2005 by the 8th Addl. Sessions Judge (F.T.C),v Raipur, (CG), whereby after holding him guilty of the olfence punishable under section 307 IPC, the learned A.S.J. has awanied the sentence of 7 years R.I. and tine of Rs.1000/—, in default of payment of nne to undergo 3 months R.I. more. (2) The case of the proecution i that on 14.8.2005 at about 10 p.m. the appellant was showing a knife to one Birbal (P.W.7). While brandishing the knife in the air, ‘ it tomed clothes of Birhal and Birbal ranaway to his house out of fear. This was intervened by victim Bisahu (P.W. 1), on which, the appellant caused one stab wound at his left Iliac—Fossa, which was 1 - 1 V2 cm width and was skin deep into the intla abdominal cavity. The victim was eamine ) xd by Dr. K.C. Ulaon (P.W.2 on 15.8.2005 who found the injury to be grievous in nature and who referred the victim to the Medica College, Hospital, for further treatment. On advice of the Doctor, X~Ray examination was also conducted, but no Appearance: s s Ram, l abnormality was detected in the said examination as is containad in Ieport (EX.P.4). (3) The learned A.S.J. after conclusion of the trial, :held the appenant guilty u/s 307 IPC and sentenced him as above. It is against this judgment, passed by the A.S.J., the appellant has preferred this appeal. (4) Learned counsel for the appellant raised only one point. His submission was that in the facts and circumstances, an onence u/s 307 IPC would not be made out and at the most, the appellant ‘ would be guilty of an onence punishable u/s 324 IPC. He Iefemed to the two decisions of the Apex Court rendered in the matter of Sggu Prasad -Vs~ State atBiharAm 1965 S.C. 843 and Earl Kishan & Stat: of Hmana -Vs- Sukhbir Sign and others Am 1988 S.C.2127. (5) On the other hand, learned state Counsel,opposing the arguments, supported the judgment of the Sessions Court. (6) I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and have also perused the records of the sessions trial. (7) In Sarju Prasad’s case (supra) the Apex Court held that in order to bring the oifence home to accused, the prosecution must establish that his intention was one of the three kinds mentioned in section 300 I.P.C. The state of mind of the accused has to be deduced from surrounding circumstances and motive would be a relevant circumstance and Where the evidence is not suEcient to establish with certainty, existence of requisite intention of knowledge of accused, the accused can be convicted only u/s 324 and not u/s 307 IPC. \ <%%/ (8) In Han' Kisan’s case (supra) the Apex Court mrther held that u/s 307 IPC, what the court has to see is, whether the act irrespective of its result, was done with the intenh'on or kncwledg€ andrunder circumstances mentioned in that section. The intention or knowledge of the accused must be such as is necessaly to constitute murder. Without this ingledient being established, there can be no oh‘ence of “attempt to murder‘. U/s 307 the intention precedes the. act attributed to accused. Therefore, the intention is to be gathered from all circumstances, and not merely from the consequences that ensue. The nature of the weapon used, manner in which it is used, motive for the crime, severity of the blow, the part of the body Where the injuiy is inhicted are some of the factoxs that may be taken into consideration to determine the intention. In the present case, if we examine the evidence of vich'm Bisahu Ram (P.W. 1), it would appear that the incident took place while he was going to his house after closing his shop when the appellant met him on the way and asked him to accompany him to the shop for purchasing Bidi At that time, the appellant was in drunken condition and he spoke at random which was resisted by the victim on which he gave a knife blow to the victim. This is the only occurrence which took place according to Bisahu Ram (RW. 1). Therefore, on the basis ofevidence of P.W. 1 itself, it would appear that the appellant had no grievance With the victim Bisahu (P.W.1) and he all of a sudden, inflicted the injmy to the victim with the help of one small knife which he was holding when the victim resisted the talks and there appears to be no motive of the crime and the intention also does not appear to that ofcausing the (9D I. L... < f death of the victim and in the facts and circumstances, it cannot be. said that element of intenu'on or knowledge as axe necessitated with certainty to constitute the offence of murder are present in the acts of the accused. More over, the nature of injury and the result of X~Ray examination, would also show that in fact the accused appellant had voluntarily caused hurt by dangemus weapon to the victim which resulted into above single injmy. , In the opinion of this Court, in the facts and circumstances of this case, an onence ufs 307 IPC would not be made out and the offence made out would be one u/ s 324 IPC, (10) In the result, the appeal is partly allowed. The conviction and sentence awanied to the appellant u/s 307 IPC are set aside. Instead, he is convicted u/s 324 IPC and is sentenced to the period already undergone which comes about more than 1 year and 3 months, as it is reported that the appellant is in jail since /Rao/ .. 07.9,2005. Ordeied accordingly. accordingly. Sdl- 1 Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge " ’