Intention To Murder Is Necessary To Invoke Section 307 of the IPC: Bombay High Court

Must Read

Writ Petition for Compensation Accepted by Calcutta High Court 

Introduction The Petitioner Purna Ch. Biswas filed a Writ Petition with the complaint that their claims for a higher quantum...

No Members Could Be Disqualified Without Authorisation by Political Party: Gujarat High Court

Excerpt The dispute application no.7 of 2020 filed by respondent no.2 before designated authority. Thereafter the designated authority order dated...

Delhi High Court Directs Delhi Jal Board To Make Supply of Potable Drinking Water

The High Court of Delhi in the matter of Delhi Sainik Cooperation Housing Ltd. v. Union of India &...

Punjab & Haryana High Court Orders Security To BJP Leader Alleged for Not Supporting Farmers Protest

The Order had come in the form of a Writ Petition filed by Tikshan Sood under Article 226 of...

Lahore High Court Outlaws Two-Finger Virginity Test

The Lahore High Court in Pakistan has outlawed the use and conduct of virginity tests, namely, the use of...

London Court Rejects Assange’s Extradition – What Happens Now? 

Earlier last week, District Judge Vanessa Baraitser, sitting in the Westminster Magistrates’ Court denied the Government of the U.S.A.'s...

Follow us

A single bench of Justice Vinay Joshi of the Nagpur seat of the Bombay High Court pronounced judgment on 29th September 2020 in the case of Ajit & Bhaiyyasaheb Ganpatrao Jadhao v. the State of Maharashtra, wherein the court interpreted the provisions of Section 307 of Indian Penal Code in detail. 

Facts of the Case

This case dates back to the year 2018. There was a rivalry over a piece of agricultural land between two real brothers. On 12th May 2018, an informant went to the cattle shed and found that it was locked by somebody. It was then broken open by the panchayat.

Afterwards, the informant went to a temple and was sitting there when suddenly, the appellant came up and started beating him. The accused then took out a knife and started stabbing the informant repeatedly.

Thereafter, he was admitted to a hospital. An investigation was conducted and the appellant was charged with attempt to murder u/s 307 IPC and was upheld by the session’s court. The accused further appealed to the High Court.

Appellant’s Arguments

The counsel of the accused/appellant submitted the following arguments:

  1. The eyewitnesses turned hostile, which was ignored by the trial court.
  2. The accused could have been held liable u/s 324 IPC (Voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons) and not 307 of IPC as no grievous hurt was caused to the informant. 

Respondent’s Arguments

The counsel of the prosecution/respondent submitted the following arguments:

  1. The evidence which was submitted by the victim/informant was enough to establish the guilt of the accused.
  2. There was an adequate motive as there was a rivalry.
  3. Medical evidence supports the prosecution case.

Court’s Observations

The court made the following observations:

    • Though two Prosecution witnesses turned hostile, they supported the case of the prosecution as they admitted a quarrel between the two brothers.
    • The evidence of the injured eye witness always stands on a high pedestal.
    • The statement of the informant was supported by FIR and medical reports.
    • The argument of the appellant that the charge of section 307 IPC cannot be sustained as there was no grievous hurt caused to the informant is not a valid ground. Causing grievous hurt is not a sine qua non under 307. The same was held by SC in the State of Maharashtra .v. Balram Bama Patil and others
    • In order to bring the charge of section 307 IPC, mere inflicting of injuries is not sufficient. There should be an intention or knowledge to murder the prosecutor. The same was held in Hari Kishan and State of Haryana v. Sukhbir Singh and others.

Court’s Decision

After taking into consideration all the evidence, the court held that the trial court was correct in prosecuting the accused u/s 307 IPC as his acts are squarely covered under the same. The court also took into consideration his aliments and therefore modified the sentence by sentencing 3 years of imprisonment instead of 5 years and increased the fine to Rs. 60,000.

Click the link to read the judgement


Libertatem.in is now on Telegram. Follow us for regular legal updates and judgment from courts. Follow us on Google News, InstagramLinkedInFacebook & Twitter. You can subscribe to our Weekly Email Updates. You can also contribute stories like this and help us spread awareness for a better society. Submit Your Post Now.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Latest News

Writ Petition for Compensation Accepted by Calcutta High Court 

Introduction The Petitioner Purna Ch. Biswas filed a Writ Petition with the complaint that their claims for a higher quantum of compensation have not yet...

No Members Could Be Disqualified Without Authorisation by Political Party: Gujarat High Court

Excerpt The dispute application no.7 of 2020 filed by respondent no.2 before designated authority. Thereafter the designated authority order dated 28.10.2020 disqualified the petitioner and...

Delhi High Court Directs Delhi Jal Board To Make Supply of Potable Drinking Water

The High Court of Delhi in the matter of Delhi Sainik Cooperation Housing Ltd. v. Union of India & Ors held that right to...

Punjab & Haryana High Court Orders Security To BJP Leader Alleged for Not Supporting Farmers Protest

The Order had come in the form of a Writ Petition filed by Tikshan Sood under Article 226 of the Constitution. The petition before...

Lahore High Court Outlaws Two-Finger Virginity Test

The Lahore High Court in Pakistan has outlawed the use and conduct of virginity tests, namely, the use of the “two-finger” virginity test and...

London Court Rejects Assange’s Extradition – What Happens Now? 

Earlier last week, District Judge Vanessa Baraitser, sitting in the Westminster Magistrates’ Court denied the Government of the U.S.A.'s request to the U.K. to...

Calcutta High Court Decides in Favor of Contractor as He Accidentally Pays an Excessively High Amount

Introduction The present writ petition has been filed for a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the Respondents to revoke the Petitioner’s offer as...

Petition Filed in Delhi High Court Challenging the New Privacy Policy of WhatsApp

A petition has been raised before the Delhi High Court challenging the updated privacy policy of the instant messaging app, WhatsApp. It is accused of looking into the virtual activities of the users,

Bombay High Court Says Pleas Against the Rejection of Nomination Before the Polls Is Not Maintainable

Bombay High Court on Wednesday held that a candidate cannot challenge his nomination by filing a writ petition before a court prior to the polls after his nominations have already been rejected by the Returning Officer (RO) for the Panchayat elections of January 15.

Bombay HC: It Will Be Difficult if Civic Bodies Don’t Take Action on Illegal Constructions

The Bombay High Court said on Wednesday that if the Municipal Corporations do not take action on the illegal constructions, things will become very difficult. This observation was made by a bench comprising Chief Justice Dipankar Dutta and Justice Girish Kulkarni while hearing a PIL after the Bhiwandi building collapse on September 21st, 2020 which led to the death of 39 lives. Mumbai Thane, Ulhasnagar, Kalyan-Dombivli, Vasai-Virar, Navi Mumbai, and Bhiwandi-Nizampur corporations were filed as respondents.

More Articles Like This

- Advertisement -