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

Must Read

Madras High Court Observes Unexplained Delay in Procedural Safeguards, Quashes Detention Through Writ Petition

A Writ Petition was filed under Article 226 to issue a writ of Habeas Corpus. The petitioner P. Lakshmi,...

UK Court of Appeal Rules Home Department’s Deportation Policy of Immigrants Unlawful

Britain’s Court of Appeal quashed the Home Department’s deportation policy, declaring it unlawful; criticizing it for being too stringent...

Inordinate and Unexplained Delay in Considering Representation by Government Renders Detention Order Illegal: Madras High Court

A Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution was filed in the Madras High Court to declare the detention...

Privy Council Clarifies Approach To Winding up in “Deadlock” Cases in the Case of Chu v. Lau

The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council clarified several aspects of the law concerning just and equitable winding-up petitions,...

Madras High Court Directs Hospital To Submit Necessary Medical Reports to Authorization Committee for Approval of Kidney Transplant

A Writ Petition was filed under Article 226 to issue a Writ of Mandamus to K.G. Hospital, Coimbatore by...

Punjab Woman Evokes Petition for Protection Fearing Honour Killing

In the case of Divya Mattu and another vs State of Punjab and others, the petitioner, Divya, fearing honour...

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

Madras High Court Observes Unexplained Delay in Procedural Safeguards, Quashes Detention Through Writ Petition

A Writ Petition was filed under Article 226 to issue a writ of Habeas Corpus. The petitioner P. Lakshmi, called for records of the...

UK Court of Appeal Rules Home Department’s Deportation Policy of Immigrants Unlawful

Britain’s Court of Appeal quashed the Home Department’s deportation policy, declaring it unlawful; criticizing it for being too stringent on immigrants to comply with. Background The...

Inordinate and Unexplained Delay in Considering Representation by Government Renders Detention Order Illegal: Madras High Court

A Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution was filed in the Madras High Court to declare the detention order of the husband of...

Privy Council Clarifies Approach To Winding up in “Deadlock” Cases in the Case of Chu v. Lau

The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council clarified several aspects of the law concerning just and equitable winding-up petitions, as well as shareholder disputes...

Madras High Court Directs Hospital To Submit Necessary Medical Reports to Authorization Committee for Approval of Kidney Transplant

A Writ Petition was filed under Article 226 to issue a Writ of Mandamus to K.G. Hospital, Coimbatore by P. Sankar & V. Sobana....

Punjab Woman Evokes Petition for Protection Fearing Honour Killing

In the case of Divya Mattu and another vs State of Punjab and others, the petitioner, Divya, fearing honour killing against her by her...

Punjab Woman Accuses Punjab Police of Keeping Husband in Illegal Custody and Framing Him in a False Case

In the case of Geeta v the State of Punjab, the petitioner evoked a writ petition of habeas corpus as she claimed that her...

Addition of Words as Prefixes or Suffixes Is an Infringement of a Registered Trademark: Delhi High Court

Justice Jayanth Nath allowed the Times Group to use its registered trademark “Newshour”, in the case of Bennett Coleman and Co. Ltd v. ARG Outlier...

Just Because the Deceased Did Not Have License, Does Not Imply He Was Negligent: Chhattisgarh High Court

In the case of Hemlal & Others v. Dayaram & Others, a Single Bench of Chhattisgarh High Court consisting of Justice Sanjay S. Agrawal annunciated various...

Hoardings Are Movable Property Under Section 2(3) of DMC Act Subject To the Twin Test: Delhi High Court

Delhi High Court in the case of Delhi International Airport v South Delhi Metropolitan Corporation discussed in detail the provision under Section 2(3) of the DMC...

More Articles Like This

- Advertisement -