Virendra Toppo Vs State of Chhattisgarh

___________________________________________________________ For Appellant : Mr. A.D. Kuldeep, Advocate For State/Respondent : Ms. Priya Sharma, PL

¶12

Hon'ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma

¶13

Judgment On Board

¶14

12/11/2025

¶15

With the consent of counsel for the parties, the matter is heard

¶16

finally.

¶17

The appellant has filed the instant appeal under Section 415(2) of the BNSS, 2023 questioning the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 11.06.2025 (Annexure A-1) passed in Sessions Trial No.05/2024 by the Sessions Judge, Jashpur,

¶18

2

¶19

District Jashpur (C.G.), whereby the appellant has been convicted and sentenced as under :-

¶20

Conviction	Sentence	In Default
Under Section 307 of the Indian	R.I. for 07 years and fine amount of	In default of payment of fine
Penal Code	Rs.50,000/-	amount further R.I. for 06 months

¶21

Briefly stated facts of the case leading to the disposal of this appeal are that on 03-11-2023, the present appellant has abused filthy languages to Kashmir Toppo and threatened to kill him for life. The allegation against the appellant is also that the appellant has assaulted the Kashmir Toppo from the Iron Jhurni, resultantly Kashmir Toppo received grievous injuries on his hand, therefore the police has registered the crime for the offences under Section 294, 506-11 and Section 307 of Indian Penal Code.

¶22

After completion of investigation, filed the charge sheet before the concerned Court.

¶23

The learned trial Court after completing the trial found the appellant guilty of the offence under Section 307 of Indian Penal Code and convicted and sentenced him as mentioned above vide impugned judgment and conviction of sentence Annexure A- 1.

¶24

3

¶25

So as to prove the complicity of the accused/appellant in the crime in question, prosecution has examined as many as 15 witnesses. Statement of the accused/appellant under Section 313 Cr.PC was also recorded in which he pleaded his innocence and false implication in the case. Defence however has not examined any witness in support of its case.

¶26

After hearing the parties and going through the material available on record including the evidence of the witnesses, learned First Additional Sessions Judge has convicted and sentenced the accused/appellant as described in paragraph two of this judgment. Hence, this appeal.

¶27

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that he argued only the sentence part of the case. He further submits that the prosecution has utterly failed to prove its case under Section 307 IPC beyond all reasonable doubts. He further submits that the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence is contrary to the facts, evidence and law applicable in the facts and circumstances of the case. The finding given by the learned trial court against the appellant is perverse and contrary to evidence on record consequently the same is liable to be set aside. The learned trial court erred in conviction the the basis of assumption and appellant only on presumption. He further contended that the prosecution case is dependent upon the circumstantial evidence and there is no eyewitness in relation to the said

¶28

4

¶29

incident and even no prosecution witness have supported the story as alleged by the prosecution, which shows that the finding arrived at by the trial court is erroneous and is not sustainable in the eyes of law. If the prosecution story has been taken as it is, there is no grievous injures found to the injured. There is no proper evidences to show the involvement of accused in the alleged incident, the accused ought to have been acquitted from the charge framed against him. The learned trial court has failed to observe that the prosecution has completely failed to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt, hence the impugned conviction and sentence are liable to be set-aside. It is therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Court may kindly be pleased to set aside the impugned judgment dated 11-06-2025 (Annexure A-1) and the appellant may kindly be acquitted.

¶30

On the other hand, counsel appearing for the State supports the judgment impugned and submits that taking into consideration the statements of the witnesses which gets corroboration from the testimony of other witnesses, the findings recorded by the trial Court holding the accused/appellant guilty under Section 307 IPC being based on proper appreciation of the evidence on record are fully justified and do not call for any interference in this appeal.

¶31

I have heard counsel for the parties, perused the judgment passed by the learned trial Court as well as other material

¶32

5

¶33

available on record with utmost circumspection.

¶34

Sarita Toppo (PW-1) who is sister of victim Kashmir Toppo has stated in her statement that on the date of incident while she was at home, her younger brother, Polikarya Toppo, informed her on her mobile phone that someone had assaulted her elder brother, Kashmir Toppo, and he was lying injured near the scene of the incident, which is the square in Mahuvatoli Basti. Upon receiving the information, she went to the scene and saw her elder brother, Kashmir Toppo, lying on the ground, with a visible cut on the left side of his neck. Her elder brother was unconscious when she arrived. Seeing her brother's condition, she took him to the Primary Health Center, Dokra, in the vehicle of Bimal of the colony. Seeing the serious condition of her elder brother Kashmir Toppo, he was referred after first aid. She then brought him to Holycrans Hospital, Ambikapur was treated for 4 days when he did not get better even at Holycrans Hospital, Kashmir Toppo was referred to Raipur Hospital where he was treated for about 15 to 20 days.

¶35

Victim Kashmir Toppo (PW-2) has stated in his statement that on the date of incident, he was sitting in the tractor's plow watching his child walk to Darupisa School. At that very moment, accused Virendra emerged from his shop with a sharp iron pick axe. He did not realize he was coming to attack him. Nothing else occurred at the scene. Shraddhanand and Niral, also from the

¶36

6

¶37

same village, were nearby. Virendra Toppo came from behind him and stabbed him in the neck, cheek, and back of the head with the sharp pick axe. He fell unconscious on the ground. He was then taken to the Primary Health Center, Dokra, for treatment. From there, he was referred to Kunkuri Hospital. From there, he was referred to Ambikapur Hospital. From there, he was taken to Raipur Hospital for further treatment.

¶38

Dr. Nilesh Kumar Khalkho (PW-8), Medical Officer at Primary Health Centre, Dokda has stated in his statement that on examination, he found cut injury on neck of the victim which was caused by a sharp edged weapon and the victim was conscious and aware of his surroundings. A lacerated wound originating from the left lower jaw and extending to the left side of the neck, measuring 15 x 3 cm. The wound was sutured. Opinion of Holycrans Hospital According to the doctor of Holycrans Hospital, the nature of injury was serious. He further stated that if treatment had not been given on time, his death was possible. The injured person's injury is at a sensitive spot. His report is Ex.P/9.

¶39

Dr. Anunima Ekka (PW-9) who is Medical Officer in the Holicross Hospital, Ambikapur has stated that the victim had a 15 cm long, 5 cm wide, and 3 cm deep injury on his neck. The injury extended from the left jaw to the back of the neck. The victim did not suffer any other serious injury. She found the injuries

¶40

7

¶41

sustained by the victim to be serious. Upon X- raying the victim's left jaw, she discovered a fracture in the left jaw. Her report is Ex.P. 13.

¶42

Thus, from the statement of the victim (PW-2), Sarita Toppo (PW-1), Dr. Nilesh Kumar Khalkho (PW-8) and Dr. Anunima Ekka (PW-9), it is crystal clear that it is the accused/appellant who hit on the victim with a sharp edged weapon as a result of which he suffered injuries on the neck. Medical evidence also goes to show that there was injuries on the neck of the victim.

¶43

Now, the question is, whether the trial Court is justified in convicting the appellant for offence under Section 307 of IPC?

¶44

At this stage, it would be appropriate to notice Section 307 of the IPC which states as under:

¶45

“307. Attempt to murder .—Whoever does any act with such intention or knowledge, and under such circumstances that, if he by that act caused death, he would be guilty of murder, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine; and if hurt is caused to any person by such act, the offender shall be liable either to imprisonment for life, or to such punishment as is hereinbefore mentioned.

¶46

Attempts by life-convicts .—When any person offending under this section is under sentence of imprisonment for life, he may, if hurt is caused, be punished with death.

¶47

The essential ingredients required to be proved in the case of an

¶48

8

¶49

offence under Section 307 of the IPC are: (i) that the death of a human being was attempted; (ii) that such death was attempted to be caused by, or in consequence of the act of the accused; and (iii) that such act was done with the intention of causing death; or that it was done with the intention of causing such bodily injury as: (a) the accused knew to be likely to cause death; or (b) was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, or that the accused attempted to cause death by doing an act known to him to be so imminently dangerous that it must in all probability cause (a) death, or (b) such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, the accused having no excused for incurring the risk of causing such death or injury.

¶50

The Supreme Court in the matter of Hari Singh Vs. Sukhbir Singh and others, (1988) 4 SCC 551, has held that under Section 307 of the IPC what the Court has to see is, whether the act irrespective of its result, was done with the intention or knowledge and under circumstances mentioned in the provision. The intention or knowledge of the accused must be such as is necessary to constitute murder. Without this ingredient being established, there can be no offence of “attempt to murder”. Under Section 307 IPC 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. It has been further held that the nature of the weapon

¶51

9

¶52

used, manner in which it is used, motive for the crime, severity of the blow, the part of the body where the injury is inflicted are some of the factors that may be taken into consideration to determine the intention.

¶53

Similarly, in the matter of State of Maharashtra Vs. Kashirao and others , (2003) 10 SCC 434, their Lordships of the Supreme Court have held that for the application of Section 307 of the IPC, it is not necessary that the injury capable of causing death should have been actually inflicted. The injuries sustained, the manner of assaults and the weapons used clearly make out a case of Section 307 of the IPC. It has been observed by their Lordships in para 21 of the report as under: -

¶54

“21. In offence under Section 307 all the ingredients of the offence of murder are present except the death of the victim. For the application of Section 307, it is not necessary that the injury capable of causing death should have been actually inflicted. The injuries sustained, the manner of assaults and the weapons used clearly make out a case of Section 307 IPC. But since sentence and fine have been maintained, alteration of conviction notwithstanding no modification of sentence need be made.”

¶55

The Supreme Court in the matter of Parsuram Pandey and others Vs. State of Bihar, (2004) 13 SCC 189 , has also held that to constitute an offence under Section 307 of the IPC, two ingredients of the offence must be present: (a) an intention of or knowledge relating to commission of murder; and (b) the doing

¶56

10

¶57

of an act towards it. It has been held in paragraph 15 of the report as under :-

¶58

“15. To constitute an offence under Section 307 two ingredients of the offence must be present: (a) an intention of or knowledge relating to commissioof murder; and (b) the doing of an act towards it. For the purpose of Section 307 what is material is the intention or the knowledge and not the consequence of the actual act done for the purpose of carrying out the intention. The section clearly contemplates an act which is done with intention of causing death but which fails to bring about the intended consequence on account of intervening circumstances. The intention or knowledge of the accused must be such as is necessary to constitute murder. In the absence of intention or knowledge which is the necessary ingredient of Section 307, there can be no offence “of attempt to murder”. Intent which is a state of mind cannot be proved by precise direct evidence, as a fact it can only be detected or inferred from other factors. ...”

¶59

Similarly, the Supreme Court in the matter of Jage Ram and

¶60

others Vs. State of Haryana, (2015) 11 SCC 366, has laid down the ingredients of the offence under Section 307 of the IPC and held as under:-

¶61

“12. For the purpose of conviction under Section 307 IPC, prosecution has to establish (i) the intention to commit murder; and (ii) the act done by the accused. The burden is on the prosecution that the accused had attempted to commit the murder of the prosecution witness. Whether the accused person intended to commit murder of another person would depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. To justify a conviction under Section 307 IPC, it is not essential that fatal injury capable of causing death should have been

¶62

11

¶63

caused. Although the nature of injury actually caused may be of assistance in coming to a finding as to the intention of the accused, such intention may also be adduced from other circumstances. The intention of the accused is to be gathered from the circumstances like the nature of the weapon used, words used by the accused at the time of the incident, motive of the accused, parts of the body where the injury was caused and the nature of injury and severity of the blows given, etc.

¶64

Having regard to the weapon used for causing the head injuries to Sukhbir, nature of injures, situs of the injury and the severity of the blows, the courts below recorded concurrent findings convicting the second appellant under Section 307 IPC. In our considered view, the conviction of the second appellant Rajbir @ Raju under Section 307 IPC is unassailable.”

¶65

Thus, taking a cumulative note of the ocular and medical evidence collected by the prosecution; looking to 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 injury has been inflicted, keeping in mind the medical report of the doctor (Ex.P-09 & 13), and taking into consideration the aforesaid judicial pronouncements of the Apex Court, this Court has no hesitation to hold that the findings recorded by the trial Court convicting the accused/appellant under Section 307 IPC are based on due appreciation of the evidence on record and deserve to be and are hereby maintained.

¶66

As regards sentence, it is evident from the records that assault made on the spur of moment without premeditation, on grave

¶67

12

¶68

and sudden provocation/oral altercation, the appellant has caused injury to the victim. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for 07 years imposed by the trial Court appears to excessively on the higher side and therefore, this Court is of the opinion that it would be in the interest of justice if the sentence imposed on him is reduced to rigorous imprisonment for 04 years. However, sentence of fine awarded by trial Court is hereby affirmed. Ordered accordingly.

¶69

The appellant is reported to be in jail. He shall serve out the sentence as modified above.

¶70

Registry is directed to send a certified copy of this judgment along with the original record of the case to the trial court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance and also send a copy of this judgment to the concerned Superintendent of Jail where the appellant is undergoing his jail sentence to serve the same on the appellant informing him that he is at liberty to assail the present judgment passed by this Court by preferring an appeal before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, if so advised, with the assistance of High Court Legal Services Committee or the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee.

¶71