TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2009 (2) TMI 937
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 149 and 148 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the 'IPC'). Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Shihore, found the accused respondents guilty and sentenced each to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years with fine and 6 months rigorous imprisonment for the other two offences. By the impugned judgment the High Court held that the appropriate conviction would be under Section 326 read with Section 149 IPC. Custodial sentence was reduced to the period already undergone, while the fine amount of Rs. 500/- was enhanced to Rs. 20,000/-. 3. Prosecution version as unfolded during trial is as follows: On 21.7.1987 at about 4 O'clock in the evening the complainant- victim Jai Singh (PW5) was at the grass field for th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....The accused persons preferred an appeal before the High Court where the basic stand was that offence under Section 307 IPC is not made out. The High Court held that there was no material on record to show that the injury was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. It was observed that chopping of the leg from the body cannot be treated sufficient to cause death. As noted above with the aforesaid observation the conviction and the sentence were altered. 4. In support of the appeal learned Counsel for the appellant-State submitted that the High Court has completely overlooked the gruesome nature of the offence. It has also overlooked the evidence of PW1, the Doctor that the injury could have caused death. 5. Learned ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eet by axe from above the ankle. The trial court noticed that the leg was chopped out between the knee and the ankle. Krishan Lal asked Ram Singh to keep the chopped pieces of the leg in the bag and Ram Singh picked up the pieces of legs and kept them in the bag. Though accused Arjun Singh asked that both his eyes should be taken out, accused Ganga Ram told him that chopping of his one leg was sufficient to cause his death. 8. Section 307 relates to attempt to murder. It reads as follows: Whoever does any act with such intention or knowledge, and under such circumstances 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....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....present an intent coupled with some overt act in execution thereof. It is not essential that bodily injury capable of causing death should have been inflicted. The Section makes a distinction between the act of the accused and its result, if any. The Court has to see whether the act, irrespective of its result, was done with the intention or knowledge and under circumstances mentioned in the Section. Therefore, an accused charged under Section 307 IPC cannot be acquitted merely because the injuries inflicted on the victim were in the nature of a simple hurt. 11. This position was highlighted in State of Maharashtra v. Balram Bama Patil and Ors. 1983 CriL J331; Girija Shanker v. State of Uttar Pradesh 2004 CriLJ 1388; R. Parkash v. State ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....US 183: 28 L.D. 2d 711 that no formula of a foolproof nature is possible that would provide a reasonable criterion in determining a just and appropriate punishment in the infinite variety of circumstances that may affect the gravity of the crime. In the absence of any foolproof formula which may provide any basis for reasonable criteria to correctly assess various circumstances germane to the consideration of gravity of crime, the discretionary judgment in the facts of each case, is the only way in which such judgment may be equitably distinguished. 15. The object should be to protect the society and to deter the criminal in achieving the avowed object of law by imposing appropriate sentence. It is expected that the Courts would operate ....