Chattisgarh High Court
Anshu Gupta @ Dipanshu Gupta vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 21 March, 2025
1
2025:CGHC:13655
AFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
CRA No. 43 of 2025
1 - Anshu Gupta @ Dipanshu Gupta S/o Rajesh Kumar Gupta Aged About 19 Years R/o
Housing Board, B.S.U.P. Colony, Khalbada Saddu, Block No. 31/25 Saddu Police Station -
Vidhansabha, District Raipur (C.G.)
... Appellant(s)
versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through - Station House Officer, P.S. Vidhansabha Raipur, District
- Raipur (C.G.)
... Respondent(s)
For Appellant(s) : Mr. C.R. Sahu, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Pranjal Shukla, Panel Lawyer
Hon'ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma, Judge Order on Board 21/03/2025
1. With the consent of counsel for the parties, the matter is heard finally at motion stage.
2. This criminal appeal has been filed under Section 415 (2) of BNSS, 2023 by the appellant against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence 2 dated 05.12.2024 passed by the First Additional Sessions, Judge, Raipur, District-Raipur (C.G.), in Session Trial No. 165/2022, whereby the appellant has been convicted and sentenced as follows:-
Conviction Sentence
U/s 307 of IPC R.I. for 7 years and fine of
Rs. 100/- and in default of
fine, additional R.I. for 15
days
U/s 25 of Arms Act R.I. for 1 year and fine of Rs.
100/-, in default of fine,
additional R.I. for 15 days
U/s 27 of Arms Act R.I. for 1 year and fine of Rs.
100/-, in default of fine,
additional R.I. for 15 days.
3. Briefly stated facts of the case leading to the disposal of this appeal are that on 18.03.2022 at about 3 o'clock during Holi festival the complainant lodged the report before the police station that nephew of complainant, i.e., Kishan Sahu was attacked with knife and was admitted in Bihan Hospital Saddu. The injured received grievous injuries on his abdomen and both legs and was unconscious during his treatment. On 20.03.2022 when the injured was conscious he told the fact that after celebrating Holi he was coming back to his house and at that time near Manish Footwear the accused persons were driving the motorcycle in a wrong side and when he denied giving them the way, the accused persons attacked him with knife. The matter was reported to the police at Police Station Vidhansabha, Raipur, District-Raipur (C.G.). The concerned police has investigated the matter and registered the crime for an offence punishable under Sections 307 of IPC and Section 25 and 27 of Arms Act. After 3 completion of investigation, the police has presented the challan before the Court of JMFC, Raipur wherein the Criminal Case was registered.
4. So as to prove the complicity of the accused/appellant in the crime in question, prosecution has examined as many as 13 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. No Defence has been examined in support of its case.
5. After hearing the parties and going through the material available on record including the evidence of the witnesses, learned First Additional Sessions Judge, Raipur, District Raipur has convicted and sentenced the accused/appellant as described in paragraph No. 2 of this judgment. Hence this appeal.
6. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the prosecution has utterly failed to prove its case under Section 307 IPC beyond all reasonable doubts. He further submits that as there was no intention on the part of the accused/appellant to cause death of the victim, the offence under Section 307 IPC is not made out and at the most act of the accused/appellant may fall either under Section 325 or 326 IPC. Alternatively, counsel for the accused/appellant submits that if the conviction part of the judgment impugned is not going to be interfered with, keeping in mind the fact that the accused/appellant has already remained behind the bars since 25.08.2022, the sentence imposed on him may be reduced to the period already undergone.
7. On the other hand, counsel appearing for the State supports the judgment impugned and submits that taking into consideration the statements of the injured/victim (PW-1), eye witness Gajendra Sahu (PW-3), and Dr. Madhuri Kant (PW-13) which gets corroboration from the 4 testimony of other independent witnesses, the findings recorded by the First Additional Sessions Judge, Raipur 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.
8. Heard counsel for the parties at length and went through the evidence on record with utmost care and caution.
9. From the evidence of the victim/injured (P.W.-01) it is apparent that the incident happened on the festival of Holi in the year 2022 when he was going to his uncle's house, at around 2 in the noon near Manish Footwear where Anshu Gupta and other two persons were coming while driving the motorcycle hit the victim/ injured. Upon which the victim abused the accused persons and in return the accused herein started committing marpit and abusing the victim/injured. The appellant herein was carrying some weapon with which he hit the victim/ injured and the victim received injuries.
10. Gajendra Sahu/ PW-3 while supporting the case of prosecution stated that on 18.03.2022 on the day of Holi at around 1:30 -2:00 pm he along with his friend Rupesh Dhivar were going from the way of Manish footwear to Chandni Chowk. The injured/ victim was walking a little ahead of them and they were walking behind the injured. Near Manish footwear the accused Anshu Gupta along with his friends were driving the bike negligently and hit the victim. Upon which the victim started abusing the accused persons and in return the accused persons also started abusing and the accused Anshu Gupta attacked the victim with knife and other persons started committing marpit with hockey stick as a result of which 5 the victim received injuries and became unconscious. Then immediately he took the victim to the hospital.
11. Dr. Madhuree Kant/ PW-13 who medically examined the victim and gave her report (Ex. P/20) has stated that there was penetrating injury which was oblique and was 2cm x 1 cm, penetrating injury over abdomen which was 2cm x 1 cm, penetrating injury on the lower thigh which was 2cm x 1 cm x muscle deep, penetrating wound on mid thigh of right leg which was 2 cm x 1 cm, penetrating wound on upper thigh of right leg which was 2 cm x 1 cm, penetrating wound on mid thigh of left leg which was 2 cm x 1 cm. According to Doctor, the above-mentioned injuries are serious in nature.
12. Thus from the evidence of the victim (PW-1), Gajendra Sahu (PW-3) and Dr. Madhuree Kant (PW-13) it is crystal clear that it is the accused/appellant who assaulted the victim with the help of knife as a result of which he suffered injuries over his abdomen, right thigh, left thigh. Medical evidence also goes to show that there was a sharp weapon injury on the victim's body. According the statement of the Dr. Madhuree Kant (PW-13), the injury sustained by the injured was grievous in nature. Ex. P/21 is the discharge ticket of Bihan Hospital which shows that the victim was admitted in the hospital on 18.03.2022 and was discharged on 04.04.2022.
13. Now, the question is, whether the trial Court is justified inconvicting the appellant for offence under Section 307 of the IPC?
14. At this stage, it would be appropriate to notice Section 307 of the IPC which states as under: -
"307. Attempt to murder.--Whoever does any act with such intention or knowledge, and under such circumstances 6 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."
The essential ingredients required to be proved in the case of an 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.
15. The Supreme Court in the matter of Hari Singh v. Sukhbir Singh and others reported in (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 7 murder". Under Section 307 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 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.
16. Similarly, in the matter of State of Maharashtra v. Kashirao and others, reported in (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 1 (1988) 4 SCC 5512 ( 2003) 10 SCC 434 observed by their Lordships in para 21 of the report as under: -
"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.
17. The Supreme Court in the matter of Parsuram Pandey and others v. State of Bihar reported in (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 of an act towards it. It has been held in paragraph 15 of the report as under:-
8
"15. To constitute an offence under Section 307 two ingredients of the offence must be present: (a) an intention of or knowledge relating to commissio of 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. "
18. Similarly, the Supreme Court in the matter of Jage Ram and others v. State of Haryana reported in (2015) 11 SCC 366 has laid down the ingredients of the offence under Section 307 of the IPC and held as under:-
"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 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 9 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.
14. 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."
19. Thus taking a cumulative note of the 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 report of the medical report (Ex.P-20) and the discharge ticket (Ex. P-21/ discharge ticket), 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 and Sections 25 and 27 of Arms Act are based on due appreciation of the evidence on record and deserve to be and are hereby maintained.
20. As regards sentence, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, particularly, the fact that there is no previous enmity between the appellant and the victim and the dispute arose only for not returning the mobile phone, and there is no previous antecedents of the appellant and appellant is only 19 year old at the time of incident. Therefore, the sentence of 7 years under Section 307 of IPC 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 10 imposed on him is reduced to rigorous imprisonment for 4 years. However, fine imposed by trial Court is maintained.
21. The appellant is in jail and he shall serve out the sentence as modified above.
22. With the aforesaid observations, the criminal appeal is partly allowed.
23. Let a copy of this order and the original records be transmitted to the trial court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance.
Sd/-
(Arvind Kumar Verma) JUDGE Madhurima