Libertatem Magazine

Proof of Infliction of Fatal Injury Not Mandatory for Conviction Under Section 307, IPC: Tripura High Court

Contents of this Page

In the case of Mamin Miah vs the State of Tripura, a Division Bench consisting of Hon’ble Justice S. Talapatra and Hon’ble Justice S. G. Chattopadhyay dealt with an appeal from a conviction under Sec 307 and 326 IPC by the Trial Court.


Majil Haque, a wholesaler of fish was attacked with a dao and given a blow on the back by the Appellant on the advice of Tapan Das resulting in serious injury. Majil was then admitted to a hospital. As soon as Majil’s wife received the information, she arrived and the hospital and in the evening lodged an FIR. A case was registered against Tapan Das and Mamin Miah under Sec 326 r.w Sec 34 IPC. A charge-sheet was filed against the Appellant under Sec 326 and Sec 307 IPC, due to lack of evidence Tapan Das was not sent up for trial. The Trial Court on the conclusion of the trial held the Appellant guilty under Sec 326 and 307 IPC. The Appellant has thus filed an appeal before the High Court.

Arguments Advanced

The Appellant counsel contended that the conviction was erroneous due to lack of evidence to prove the intention to kill even knowledge of death under Sec 307 IPC. Further, the hurt caused cannot be termed grievous due to non-production of X-ray report substantiating the nature of injuries. Counsel relied on the case of Budh Singh Vs. State of Punjab. The intention to kill was absent because as the victim was unprotected if there was an intention to kill, the Appellant could have easily executed it.

The Additional public prosecutor submitted that for conviction under Sec 307IPC, bodily injury capable of causing death need not be proved rather the intention was to be drawn from the circumstances and Accused could be convicted irrespective of nature of injury inflicted as held in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Saleem @ Chamaru & Anr. The intention can be gathered from the weapon used and manner of assault, the victim’s neck was targeted and attacked from behind.

Court’s Observation and Conclusion

The Court observed that as laid down in Jage Ram & Ors. Vs. State of Haryana & Ors. to prove as an offence under Sec 307 IPC fatal injury need not be proved, intention to be gathered from circumstances such as the weapon used, the severity of the blow, the body part targeted. Perusing the facts, it could be seen that the accused was desperate that he did not stop after one blow on a vital part of victim’s body, the victim protested and tried to ward off the second blow which caused a cut in his wrist, the depth of this injury can be used to determine the severity if the second blow. These circumstances indicate that the Appellant did possess the intention to kill. The Accused being a fish seller and having proper knowledge about the severity of the injury that could be caused if attacked by a dao and the fact that the victim was given repeated blows brings the case under Sec 307 IPC. Concerning conviction under Sec 326 IPC, it could be observed from the injury report that there was a deep cut in the left wrist that caused comminuted fracture which falls under clause 7 of Sec 320 IPC. Therefore, the conviction of the Appellant under Sec 307 and 320 IPC by the Trial Court was made appropriately.

Click here to view the Judgement. 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.

About the Author