1    

REPORTABLE  

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA  CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION  

CRIMINAL APPEAL  NO. 1589 OF 2018   (ARISING OUT OF SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRL) NO. 1433 OF 2013)  

       THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH                ...APPELLANT         

VERSUS        

KANHA @ OMPRAKASH                   ...RESPONDENT     

J U D G M E N T    

Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, J  

1 Delay condoned.  

 2 This appeal is by the State against the judgment and order dated 2  

December 2011 of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at its Gwalior Bench. The  

High Court converted the conviction of the respondent under Section 307 of the  

Indian Penal Code („Penal Code‟) to Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code and  

sentenced him to imprisonment for forty days, undergone by him, with a fine of Rs  

3,000.

2    

3  According to the prosecution, on 8 October 2003, an altercation took place  

between two parties. The respondent, with an intention to kill one Dashrath Singh,  

shot him with a fire-arm and caused bleeding injuries on his right thigh. The  

brother of Dashrath Singh filed a complaint on the same day at the Gwalior Police  

Station. It was stated in the complaint that there was enmity between the parties  

over a love marriage which was opposed by the families as well as a dispute over  

a disc cable connection business. The allegation against the accused was that  

armed with deadly weapons, they formed an illegal assembly with a common  

motive of causing harm to the injured. The charge-sheet was filed under Sections  

147 and 307 read with 149 and 323 of the Penal Code. The respondent was  

found guilty of the offence under Section 307 of the Penal Code and was  

sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years along with a fine of  

Rs 1,000 by the Trial Court. Seven other co-accused were acquitted of all the  

charges levelled against them.  

4 The respondent preferred an appeal before the High Court. The High Court  

converted the conviction of the respondent from that under Section 307 to Section  

324 of the Penal Code and sentenced him to imprisonment for forty days, which  

had already been undergone by him, with a fine of Rs 3,000.  

   5      The State has preferred this appeal, by Special Leave.  

3    

6 We have heard learned counsel for the State and learned counsel  

appearing for the respondent.  

 7 Learned counsel appearing for the State submitted that the High Court  

based its judgment on a manifestly incorrect appreciation of the evidence. Eleven  

punctured wounds of sizes varying from 0.4 x 0.5 cm to 0.4 x 0.6 cm were found  

on the body of the injured by Dr P K Mishra (PW 1).  These injuries were stated to  

have been caused by a firearm six hours prior to the medical examination. It is  

urged by the learned counsel for the State that the High Court has failed to  

consider the evidence before it. The nature of injuries as well as the weapon of  

offence clearly prove an intention to commit murder and the hurt caused satisfies  

the ingredients of Section 307 of the Penal Code. Hence the appeal deserves to  

be allowed.  

8 On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondent submits  

that the nature of the injuries was not explained in the evidence of the  

prosecution. Neither Dr PK Mishra (PW1) nor Dr Amar Mukund Tiwari (PW2)  

gave their opinion about the nature of the injuries and there was no evidence to  

prove that the injuries caused to Dashrath Singh were grievous in nature or life-

threatening. Hence, it is urged by the learned counsel that they are simple  

injuries. It was further submitted that since the injuries were caused by an  

instrument of shooting, the offence will fall under Section 324 instead of 307 of  

the Penal Code.  

4    

9 The High Court accepted the contention of the respondent that the nature  

of injuries was not conclusively proved. The High Court held that in the absence  

of evidence that the injuries were grievous or dangerous to life, they were simple  

in nature. In the view of the High Court, the offence will fall under Section 324  

instead of Section 307 of the Penal Code.   

 10      Section 307 of the Penal Code reads thus:   

“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.  

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.  

Illustrations  

(a) A shoots at Z with intention to kill him, under such  

circumstances that, if death ensued, A would be guilty of  

murder. A is liable to punishment under this section.  

(b) A, with the intention of causing the death of a child of  

tender years, exposes it in a desert place. A has committed  

the offence defined by this section, though the death of the  

child does not ensue.  

(c) A, intending to murder Z, buys a gun and loads  

it. A has not yet committed the offence. A fires the gun at Z.  

He has committed the offence defined in this section, and, if  

by such firing he wounds Z, he is liable to the punishment  

provided by the latter part of the first paragraph of this  

section.  

(d) A, intending to murder Z, by poison, purchases poison  

and mixes the same with food which remains in A's  

keeping; A has not yet committed the offence in this  

section. A places the food on Z's table or delivers it to Z's  

servants to place it on Z's table. A has committed the offence  

defined in this section.”  

5    

The first part of Section 307 refers to “an act with such intention or knowledge,  

and under such circumstances that, if he by that act caused death, he would be  

guilty of murder”. The second part of Section 307, which carries a heavier  

punishment, refers to „hurt‟ caused in pursuance of such an „act‟.   

 11 Several judgements of this Court have interpreted Section 307 of the Penal  

Code. In State of Maharashtra v Balram Bama Patil 1 , this Court held that it is  

not necessary that a bodily injury sufficient under normal circumstances to cause  

death should have been inflicted:  

“9...To justify a conviction under this section it is not essential  

that bodily injury capable of causing death should have been  

inflicted. Although the nature of injury actually caused may  

often give considerable assistance in coming to a finding as  

to the intention of the accused, such intention may also be  

deduced from other circumstances, and may even, in some  

cases, be ascertained without any reference at all to actual  

wounds. The section makes a distinction between an act  

of the accused and its result, if any. Such an act may not  

be attended by any result so far as the person assaulted  

is concerned, but still there may be cases in which the  

culprit would be liable under this section. It is not  

necessary that the injury actually caused to the victim of  

the assault should be sufficient under ordinary  

circumstances to cause the death of the person  

assaulted. 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 this  

section. An attempt in order to be criminal need not be the  

penultimate act. It is sufficient in law, if there is present an  

intent coupled with some overt act in execution thereof.”  

(Emphasis supplied)  

This position in law was followed by subsequent benches of this Court. In State  

of   M P v Saleem 2 , this Court held thus:  

                                                 1  (1983) 2  SCC 28  

2  (2005) 5 SCC 554

6    

“13. It is sufficient to justify a conviction under Section 307 if  

there is present an intent coupled with some overt act in  

execution thereof. It is not essential that bodily injury capable  

of causing death should have been inflicted. The section  

makes a distinction between the act of the accused and its  

result, if any. The court has to see whether the act,  

irrespective of its result, was done with the intention or  

knowledge and under circumstances mentioned in the  

section. Therefore, an accused charged under Section  

307 IPC cannot be acquitted merely because the injuries  

inflicted on the victim were in the nature of a simple  

hurt.”                                                    (Emphasis supplied)  

In Jage Ram v State of Haryana 3 , this Court held that to establish the  

commission  of an offence under Section 307, it is not essential that a fatal injury  

capable of causing death should have been inflicted:   

“12. For the purpose of conviction under Section 307 IPC, the  

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  

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.”  

The above judgements of this Court lead us to the conclusion that proof of  

grievous or life-threatening hurt is not a sine qua non for the offence under  

Section 307 of the Penal Code. The intention of the accused can be ascertained  

                                                 3  (2015) 11 SCC 366

7    

from the actual injury, if any, as well as from surrounding circumstances. Among  

other things, the nature of the weapon used and the severity of the blows inflicted  

can be considered to infer intent.  

 12 The Trial court based its conviction on the evidence adduced at the trial.    

PW1, Dr P K Mishra had examined the injured on 8 October 2003 and found 11  

punctured wounds of sizes varying from 0.4 x 0.5 cm to 0.4 x 0.6 cm. The injuries  

were bleeding, but no blackness was present. He noted that the wounds were  

caused by a fire arm and were inflicted in six hours before the examination. The  

witness stated that the confirmation of the injuries depended on the X-Ray report  

and expert opinion of the ward doctor. The report of the Radiologist (PW2) stated  

that he had observed multiple small rounded radiopaque shadows of metallic  

density. This is indicative of the presence of firearm injuries.  

 13  Based on the evidence of the witnesses, the Trial court came to the  

conclusion that the injuries were caused by the respondent. Dashrath Singh  

(PW11) deposed that the respondent shot at him in the right thigh with a country  

rifle. The complainant (PW12) stated that the respondent fired at PW11 with a  

deliberate intention to kill him. The ocular evidence is cogent and corroborated by  

the medical evidence.  

8    

14 Based on the evidence on record, the Trial court held that it could not be  

proved that the other accused had a common intention of causing injuries or  

death upon Dashrath Singh. Thus, the co-accused were acquitted of charges.  

15 The Trial court found that PW4, PW8 and PW13, who were present near  

the place of incident, had sustained injuries. The witnesses had admitted that  

they were hit by bullet shots. The court concluded that it was established that at  

the date, time and venue of the said incident, a fire arm had been used and the   

afore-mentioned witnesses had also suffered bullet injuries. The Court held that it  

was substantiated that the shots fired by the respondent first hit the injured  

Dashrath Singh. The injured Dashrath Singh had stated that the house of the  

respondent was 40-50 metres from the spot where the incident took place. It was  

held that in such circumstances if a fire arm is shot at such a distance, the shot  

gets dispersed and may hit persons in the vicinity. There existed a long standing  

dispute between the parties with regard to the business of cable discs and an   

altercation took place with regard to it. In the quarrel that ensued, the respondent  

fired at Dashrath Singh, injuring him.  

16 The evidence establishes that the injuries were caused by a fire-arm. The  

multiplicity of wounds indicates that the respondent fired at the injured more than  

once. The fact that hurt has been caused by the respondent is sufficiently proven.  

The lack of forensic evidence to prove grievous or a life-threatening injury cannot  

be a basis to hold that Section 307 is inapplicable. This proposition of law has

9    

been elucidated by a two-judge bench of this Court in Pasupuleti Siva  

Ramakrishna Rao v State of Andhra Pradesh 4  :  

“18. There is no merit in the contention that the statement of  

medical officer that there is no danger to life unless there is  

dislocation or rupture of the thyroid bone due to strangulation  

means that the accused did not intend, or have the  

knowledge, that their act would cause death. The  

circumstances of this case clearly attract the second part of  

this section since the act resulted in Injury 5 which is a  

ligature mark of 34 cm × 0.5 cm. It must be noted that  

Section 307 IPC provides for imprisonment for life if the  

act causes “hurt”. It does not require that the hurt should  

be grievous or of any particular degree. The intention to  

cause death is clearly attributable to the accused since the  

victim was strangulated after throwing a telephone wire  

around his neck and telling him that he should die. We also  

do not find any merit in the contention on behalf of the  

accused that there was no intention to cause death because  

the victim admitted that the accused were not armed with  

weapons. Very few persons would normally describe the  

Thums up bottle and a telephone wire used, as weapons.  

That the victim honestly admitted that the accused did not  

have any weapons cannot be held against him and in favour  

of the accused.”                                       (Emphasis supplied)  

17 In the present case, the nature of the injuries shows that there were eleven  

punctured wounds. The weapon of offence was a firearm. The circumstances of  

the case clearly indicate that there was an intention to murder. The presence of  

11 punctured and bleeding wounds as well as the use of a fire arm leave no  

doubt that there was an intention to murder. Thus, the second part of Section 307  

of the Penal Code is attracted in the present case. The judgement of the High  

Court overlooks material parts of the evidence and suffers from perversity.  

                                                 4  (2014) 5 SCC 369

10    

18 Hence, we set aside the judgement of the High Court and restore the order  

of conviction by the Trial court under Section 307 of the Penal Code as well as  

the sentence awarded of rigorous imprisonment of 3 years and a fine of Rs 1000.  

The appeal is, accordingly allowed. The respondent shall forthwith surrender to  

serve out the sentence. A copy of the judgment shall be forwarded by the  

Registry to the Chief Judicial Magistrate concerned to secure compliance.   

…….............................................................J            [Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud]          

….…….………….......................................J              [MR Shah]        New Delhi;  February 04, 2019.