State Of Gujarat vs Mamad ... on 24 April, 2015
22. If under this provision the conviction is to
be sustained, the nature of injuries caused would
have considerable importance in arriving at the
findings as to the intention of the person
concerned. Such intention needs to be gathered
from all the circumstances as may get proved on
Page 24 of 31
R/CR.A/1071/1996 CAV JUDGMENT
record, that also can be ascertained without the
nature of actual injuries sustained. This
provision also makes a distinction between the
act of the person of the accused and also the
outcome of his act. It is not necessary for
holding the person guilty to prove that his act
has invariably resulted into inflicting injuries
capable of leading to death. What is essentially
to be seen by the Court is whether the act was
done with the intention or knowledge,
irrespective of its result under the
circumstances specified in the provision. So what
is vital is to get the intention coupled with
such overt act for executing the intent. The mere
fact that the injury actually inflicted by the
accused did not injure any vital organ of the
victim itself is not sufficient to take out
provision of section 307 of the Indian Penal
Code. This position was highlighted by the Apex
Court in the case of Vitthal Jadav v. State of
Maharashtra, reported in (2004) Cr.L.J. 1786
(S.C.). What can be deduced from the discussion
above is that for proving the charge under
Page 25 of 31
R/CR.A/1071/1996 CAV JUDGMENT
section 307, the prosecution needs to prove that
the accused committed an act which was done with
an intention or with the knowledge of causing and
under such circumstances that, if he by that act
would have caused death, he would be guilty of
murder. For attracting this provision, intent or
knowledge is the most essential part, which can
be gathered from the nature of injury, the part
of body on which the injury is inflicted, the
nature of injuries and all the attending
circumstances.