The single judge upheld the conviction and sentence under Section 307 IPC for attempted culpable homicide not amounting to murder. The court relied on the victim's testimony, medical evidence of injuries caused by a sharp weapon, and the spot arrest of the accused.
Conviction and sentence under Section 307 IPC affirmed; appeal dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
A.F.R.
Court No. - 42
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 2699 of 1998
Appellant :- Surendra Alias Pintu
Respondent :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Appellant :- S.P.Gautham
Counsel for Respondent :- Govt. Advocate
Hon'ble Arvind Kumar Mishra-I,J.
The instant criminal appeal has been
preferred against the judgment and order of
conviction dated 6.10.1998 passed by the Court of
the then Xth Additional Sessions Judge, Ghaziabad
in Sessions Trial No. 588 of 1995 (State vs.
Surendra alias Pintu) under Section - 307 I.P.C.
Police Station - Vijay Nagar, District -
Ghaziabad, arising out of Case Crime No. 259 of
1995, whereby the appellant has been convicted
under Section - 307 I.P.C. and sentenced to five
years' rigorous imprisonment coupled with fine
Rs. 1,000/- (One Thousand Rupees) with default
stipulation to suffer additional imprisonment for
six months.
Facts relevant for adjudication of this
appeal as reflected from the record appear to be
that informant - Veerpal lodged written report
(Ext.Ka-1) at Police Station - Vijay Nagar on
25.7.1995 at around 7:30 a.m. against the accused
- Surendra alias Pintu that he is a mischievous
person and always picks quarrel with people.
Sometime ago, he had assaulted a person of the
locality with a pair of scissors and thereafter,
he himself consumed poison. However, that case
2
was compromised without informing the police. The
informant's wife Pushpa used to admonish the
accused for his mischievous behaviour and also
asked the accused not to come to her home, due to
which the accused developed grudge against her.
On 25.7.1995, while the informant and his
wife were present at home, accused – Surendra
alias Pintu came to his home and assaulted his
wife with knife, thus causing injuries on her
person, due to which she fell down. On alarm
being raised, Mohan Lal, Pale and his brother
Chandrapal arrived on the spot. They intercepted
and caught hold of Surendra alias Pintu along
with the blood-stained knife. It was also
described in the report that had these persons
not intervened, the accused would have killed his
wife.The report was noted at the relevant record
at Case Crime No. 259 of 1995. The injured was
sent to Government Hospital for medical
examination, whereupon, the following injuries
were found on examination on the person of
Pushpa.
1. Stab wound over left side chest. 01½ cm. x 3/4 cm. x (02 cm) deep. (Not probed thoroughly) 06 cm below & lateral to left nipple. Margins clean cut. Edges well defined. Oozing of blood present.
2. Incised wound over back of left arm at the lever of axillary angle 03½ cm x 01½ cm x Muscle deep. Oozing of blood present.
In the opinion of the doctor, injury no. 1
was kept under observation and x-ray was advised.
Injury no. 2 was stated to be simple.
Both the injuries were found fresh and caused
by sharp-edged object.
3
The injury report has been proved as Ex.Ka-3.
Thereafter, the investigation ensued and the
Investigating Officer recorded statement of the
witnesses, took note of the contents of first
information report and the entry made in the G.D.
concerned of the date and time concerned. He
prepared the site plan - Ext.Ka-6 and after
completion of the investigation, filed charge-
sheet Ext.Ka-7 under Section-307 I.P.C.
Consequently, committal proceedings took place and the case was committed to the court of Session, wherein it was numbered as Sessions Trial No. 588 of 1995. The Session Judge charged the accused under Section-307 I.P.C. and as a sequel to that, the case was transferred to the aforesaid court of Additional Session Judge. Appellant was heard on point of charge and the trial court was prima facie satisfied with the case against the accused, therefore, it framed charge against the accused under Section 307 IPC. The charge was read over and explained to the accused in hindi, who denied the charge and claimed to be tried.
Consequently, the prosecution in order to
prove the guilt of the accused and substantiate
charge against him, produced in all five (5)
witnesses, of whom Veerpal P.W.-1 is the
informant. He has proved the written report as
Ext.Ka-1.
P.W.-2 is Mohan Lal. He is eye-witness of the
occurrence and has supported the incident.
4
P.W.-3 is victim - Pushpa. She has described
the incident.
P.W.-4 is Dr. Harish Chandra Dua. He has
proved the medical examination report Ext.Ka-3.
P.W.-5 is Omveer Singh. He has proved the
investigation conducted by the Investigating
Officer and has proved the relevant papers viz.
site plan, charge-sheet, relevant entry made in
the G.D. concerned, Check FIR, etc.
Thereafter, the evidence for prosecution was
closed and statement of the accused was recorded
under Section-313 Cr.P.C., wherein, he claimed
his implication false.
No evidence was put forth by the defence,
either oral or documentary.
The court below after hearing the accused on
the merit of the case, recorded aforesaid finding
of conviction and sentenced the accused to five
years' rigorous imprisonment coupled with fine
Rs.1,000/- with default stipulation to suffer
additional imprisonment for six months.
Consequently, this appeal.
Heard learned counsel for the appellant and
learned A.G.A. for the State of U.P.
It has been vehemently claimed on behalf of
the appellant that the prosecution has not been
able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt
against the accused under Section 307 I.P.C.The
evidence is woefully wanting on the point of
probative force for charge under Section 307
I.P.C. The injury caused shall not be covered
5
within the four corners of Section 307 I.P.C.
that in ordinary course, it would have been fatal
and would cause death. The appellant has been
falsely implicated on account of enmity.
Learned A.G.A. has supported the judgment of
conviction and the sentence awarded against the
accused and has claimed that charge has been
satisfactorily proved.
Insofar as the merit of the case is
concerned, obviously the accused is known to the
informant and his family, particularly, Pushpa,
wife of the informant - the victim.
As per the written report, the incident took place on 25.7.1995 around 7:00 a.m. At that point of time, the informant and his wife were present in their home, when accused Surendra alias Pintu, who is son of aunt ( mausi ) of the informant and who is his neighbour, came over there and assaulted Pushpa, wife of the informant with a knife, resulting into her receiving injuries. As per the allegations made in the written report, the accused is a mischievous person and usually used to pick quarrel with other persons. Sometime ago, he had assaulted a person of the locality with a pair of scissors , whereafter he himself consumed poison, but the matter was compromised without informing the police. Due to aforesaid facts, the informant's wife used to admonish the accused asked him not to visit her home, which made him furious. On the fateful day, he came to the house of the informant and assaulted his wife with knife and caused several knife blows, due to
6
which she after sustaining injuries fell on the
ground. An alarm was raised, whereupon, Mohan
Lal, Pale and Chandrapal arrived on the spot and
caught hold of the accused along with the blood-
stained knife. The accused was then taken to the
police station, where the written report scribed
by one Aman Singh was lodged, which is Ext. Ka-1
and memo of knife was also prepared at the police
station by Constable Omveer. Memo is Ext. Ka-2.
The victim was taken to District Hospital,
Ghaziabad where she was medically examined at
8:10 a.m. on 25.7.1995 by Dr. Suresh Chandra Dua
who noted two specific injuries on her person.
Injury no. 1 was stab wound over left side
chest. 01½ cm. x 3/4 cm. x (02 cm) deep. (Not
probed thoroughly) 06 cm below & lateral to left
nipple. Injury No.2 was incised wound over back
of left arm at the lever of axillary angle 03½ cm
x 01½ cm x Muscle deep.
Insofar as the incident is concerned, the
testimony of victim is quite consistent. She has
proved the incident – that she was present at
home at that point of time when the accused came
to her home then he picked up knife from her
house and assaulted her. The incident was
witnessed by Veerpal and Mohal Lal. On alarm
being raised, victim's husband informant Veerpal
and the witnesses – Mohal Lal, Pale and
Chandrapal - arrived at the spot and caught hold
of the accused along with the blood-stained
knife. Thereafter, the accused was taken to the
police station along with the recovered knife.
7
The victim was sent to the hospital where her
treatment took place. She has stated that the
knife blow was caused with the intention to kill
her. She has also stated that the accused is son
of sister of her mother-in-law. Nothing adverse
of the sort has emerged in the cross examination
of P.W.-3 – Pushpa (victim) which may cast any
shadow of doubt on the point of her description
of the incident.
Further P.W.4 Dr. Harish Chandra Dua has also
proved the injury and has stated categorically
that the injuries could have been caused by
sharp-edged weapon around 7:00 a.m. on 25.7.1995.
He has denied suggestion that these injuries can
be caused by fall on sewing machine or on the
utensils. He has categorically stated that injury
no. 2 cannot be caused by fall. Regarding injury
no. 1, he has specified that it can be caused by
any sharp edged weapon. Injury no.1 was on vital
part of the body. The doctor did not prove the
depth of injury no. 1 on account of safety of the
patient/victim.
P.W.-5 S.I. Omveer Singh has testified to the
ambit that he was posted at the relevant point of
time as head constable of Police Station - Vijay
Nagar and he has worked with S.I. Maharana Pratap
Singh and Constable Omveer Singh and he is well-
acquainted with their hand writing. S.I. Maharana
Pratap Singh has since expired, who was I.O. of
this case. Therefore on behalf of the
Investigating Officer, P.W.-5 has proved the
investigation and the relevant papers – site plan
8
and charge-sheet etc, apart from proving the
entry made in the Check FIR and the G.D.
concerned, whereby the case was lodged and
registered against the accused at Police Station
- Vijay Nagar on 25.7.1995.
In view of categorical statement of the
victim - P.W.-3 Pushpa and P.W.-4 – Dr. Harish
Chandra Dua, obviously, the nature of assault,
being caused by a sharp edged knife, stands
proved. Insofar as the contention regarding want
of intention to kill qua nature of injury no.1
caused on the left side of chest is concerned,
then obviously, the point for consideration would
be the seat of assault on the person of the
victim coupled with manner of the assault.
Certainly, as many as three knife blows were
claimed to have been caused. However, only two
injuries on the person of the victim have been
noted at the time of her medical examination by
the doctor and may be that one assault might have
missed, therefore only two injuries were caused.
The nature of assault on the chest of the victim
is self-explanatory of fact that the accused
intended to cause grievous injury and thus caused
injury on the left side of the chest and the
depth of the stab wound was not thoroughly probed
keeping factum of safety of the victim by the
doctor. Assault by knife in such a manner on the
left side of the chest is itself indicative of
the specific intent of the accused as to what he
wished to cause by his act. It is not necessary
that accused may always succeed in accomplishing
9
his task as desired by him, but sometimes, the
circumstances may prevent him from accomplishing
his task which may be beyond his control. The
very same thing happened in this case and the
accused was caught on the spot because of the
arrivals of the witnesses.
Insofar as the statement of P.W.-3 - Dr.
Harish Chandra Dua is concerned, obviously this
injury can be caused by sharp-edged weapon. The
injuries are not artificial and no such testimony
has been adduced by the doctor.
In view of the presence of injury on the
person of the victim and the spot arrest of the
accused, the case stands proved beyond reasonable
doubt against the accused rightly within the four
corners of Section 307 I.P.C. and the court below
has justifiably awarded sentence for five years'
rigorousimprisonmentcoupledwithfine
Rs.1,000/- and in case of default the accused
would have to suffer additional imprisonment for
six months period.
Consequently, the finding of conviction and
the sentence awarded are hereby upheld and
affirmed.
This appeal lacks merit and the same is
dismissed.
In this case, the accused is in jail. He will
suffer the entire sentence imposed by the trial
court.
Let a copy of this order be certified to the
trial court concerned for information and
10
necessary follow up action.
Order Date :- 24.10.2018
S Rawat
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the injuries caused by a knife blow to the chest and the manner of assault establish the specific intent to cause grievous hurt punishable under Section 307 IPC.
Whether the evidence on record proves the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Surendra Alias Pintu
State Of U.P.
Arvind Kumar Mishra
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court