Summary
Grievous or life-threatening injury was not essential to an attempted-murder conviction. The required intention or knowledge could be inferred from the weapon, injuries and surrounding circumstances. Cogent eyewitness evidence, corroborated by firearm injuries including eleven punctured bleeding wounds, established murderous intent here. The High Court’s reduction to Section 324 IPC was reversed and the trial court’s conviction and sentence restored.
Issues
- Whether absence of proof of grievous or life-threatening injury justified reducing attempted murder to hurt by a dangerous weapon.
Provisions considered
- Section 307, Indian Penal Code, 1860The offence turned on the prescribed intention or knowledge coupled with an overt act, not the injury’s severity alone; hurt attracted the latter part without needing to be grievous. (¶¶ 10–11, 16–17)
Held
- The act and its result were distinct. A wound capable of causing death was unnecessary, and simple hurt did not by itself exclude Section 307. Intent could be inferred from actual injury and circumstances including the weapon and severity of the assault. (¶ 10–11)
- Eyewitness testimony identifying the respondent as the shooter was cogent and corroborated by medical evidence of firearm injuries. The longstanding dispute, use of a firearm and eleven punctured bleeding wounds supported the finding of intention to murder. (¶ 12–17)
- Lack of forensic proof that the injuries were grievous or life-threatening did not justify treating Section 307 as inapplicable. The High Court overlooked material evidence and its conclusion was perverse. (¶ 16–18)
Result
State’s appeal allowed; High Court judgment set aside and trial court conviction under Section 307 IPC restored with three years’ rigorous imprisonment and ₹1,000 fine. Respondent directed to surrender forthwith; judgment to be sent to the concerned Chief Judicial Magistrate for compliance.