The Supreme Court has altered the conviction of three appellants from attempt to murder under Section 307 IPC to voluntarily causing grievous hurt under Section 325 IPC.
The Court held that the prosecution failed to prove intention or knowledge necessary to sustain a conviction for attempt to murder.
A Bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh partly allowed the appeals in Roshan Lal v. State of Haryana & Anr.
The Bench modified the conviction passed by the Punjab and Haryana High Court and the Trial Court.
Incident Occurred During Village Watch Duty
According to the prosecution, injured informant Amar Singh was performing village night watchman duty on June 5, 2000.
When he reached near the house of Rama Nand, he allegedly saw certain persons assaulting another individual.
The prosecution claimed that the accused attacked Amar Singh after he intervened.
Sajjan Singh allegedly struck Amar Singh on the head with a lathi. Satya Prakash allegedly hit his right hand with another lathi.
The prosecution also alleged that Roshan Lal struck the complainant on the head with a lathi.
Rama Nand later rescued the complainant after hearing his alarm.
Police registered FIR No. 116/2000 on June 6, 2000 under Sections 323, 325 and 506 IPC. Authorities later added Section 307 IPC.
Medical Evidence Confirmed Grievous Injuries
Doctors found a lacerated wound on the complainant’s scalp along with fractures in both parietal bones.
Medical reports also recorded haemorrhagic contusions and serious complications, including multi-organ failure.
Doctors described the injuries as dangerous to life.
The Trial Court convicted Roshan Lal, Satya Prakash and Sajjan Singh under Sections 307 and 506 IPC.
The Punjab and Haryana High Court later upheld the conviction.
Appellants Denied Intention To Kill
Before the Supreme Court, the appellants argued that the assault occurred during a sudden altercation.
They contended that they had no intention or premeditated plan to kill Amar Singh.
The appellants also argued that the prosecution failed to examine independent witnesses and the investigating officer.
Roshan Lal further sought relief under the Probation of Offenders Act.
The prosecution, however, argued that the lower courts rightly relied on medical and ocular evidence.
Supreme Court Explains Scope Of Section 307 IPC
The Bench examined earlier judgments on the scope of Section 307 IPC.
The Court observed that conviction for attempt to murder requires proof of intention or knowledge to cause death.
According to the Bench, courts can infer intention from surrounding circumstances such as motive, weapon used, targeted body part and manner of assault.
However, the Court found no evidence of prior enmity, planning or concerted intention to kill Amar Singh.
The Bench held that the assault arose suddenly after the complainant intervened in an ongoing altercation.
Court Converts Conviction To Section 325 IPC
The Supreme Court held that the seriousness of injuries alone cannot justify conviction under Section 307 IPC.
The Court noted that the accused used ordinary lathis and did not attack with exceptional brutality or ferocity.
However, the Bench held that the injuries clearly amounted to grievous hurt under Section 320 IPC because the complainant suffered skull fractures and prolonged medical complications.
Accordingly, the Court altered the conviction from Section 307 IPC to Section 325 IPC.
Sentence Reduced To Period Already Undergone
While deciding sentence, the Court noted that the appellants had already spent substantial time in custody.
Roshan Lal had undergone imprisonment for two years and seven months. Sajjan Singh spent two years and eight months in jail, while Satya Prakash spent one year and one month in custody.
The Supreme Court held that the sentence already undergone would suffice.
However, the Court directed each appellant to pay ₹50,000 as compensation to the injured complainant.
If they fail to pay the amount, they will undergo an additional six months of simple imprisonment.
