307 IPC | Repeated Assaults with Lethal Weapon - Grievous Injury Not Essential for Attempt to Murder Conviction: Patna High Court

In a significant judgment delivered on October 28, 2024, the Patna High Court ruled that grievous injury is not an essential criterion for a conviction under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), which deals with attempted murder. The court emphasized that the intention or knowledge with which the act was committed, coupled with overt acts demonstrating such intent, is sufficient to sustain a conviction under this section.

The case arose from an incident on July 11, 2003, where the informant, Vakil Mistri, was attacked by Subhash Mistri (Respondent No. 2) with a weapon (farsa) attached to a lathi, causing head injuries. The informant alleged that the attack was instigated by a dispute related to social participation in family events. Following the initial assault, other respondents, Laddu Mistri and Rajesh Mistri, allegedly assaulted the informant with lathis.

The Additional District & Sessions Judge-1st, Naugachia, Bhagalpur, had acquitted the respondents of charges under Sections 307 and 324 IPC, reasoning that grievous injury—a supposed essential ingredient—was absent. However, the trial court found them guilty under Sections 323, 341, and 447/34 IPC for causing simple injuries.

The division bench of Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajeev Ranjan Prasad and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ashok Kumar Pandey set aside the trial court's acquittal, ruling that the trial court misunderstood the legal requirements under Section 307 IPC. The bench cited key precedents, including Ratan Singh vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (2009) and Pasupuleti Siva Ramakrishna Rao vs. State of Andhra Pradesh (2014), which clarified that grievous injury is not mandatory for conviction under Section 307 IPC.

Intention and Repeated Assaults: The court highlighted that the accused's intent, coupled with repeated blows and the use of potentially lethal weapons, was sufficient to demonstrate an attempt to murder. The nature of the injuries, while simple, was not the sole deciding factor.

Medical and Eyewitness Corroboration: The testimony of the informant (PW-1) and medical evidence (Exhibit-2), which included multiple lacerations and swelling, supported the prosecution's case. The court emphasized the reliability of the informant's statement despite minor discrepancies.

Distinguishing Previous Judgments: The respondents had argued that simple injuries should preclude a conviction under Section 307 IPC, citing Sivamani vs. State (2023). The High Court, however, distinguished that case on the grounds that it did not involve repeated or severe blows.
Decision and Directions

The High Court convicted Respondent No. 2 under Sections 307/34 and 324 IPC, while Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 were convicted under Section 307/34 IPC. The court directed that the respondents be taken into custody and scheduled a hearing for sentencing and compensation on October 30, 2024.

The court criticized the trial court for failing to award compensation under Section 357 CrPC, emphasizing the judicial duty to ensure victim relief.
 

Date of Decision: 28 October 2024