Court’s Decision:
The Delhi High Court altered the conviction of the appellant, initially convicted under Section 307 IPC (attempt to murder), to Section 308 IPC (attempt to commit culpable homicide not amounting to murder). The court determined that there was no clear evidence of intent or knowledge to commit murder, which are essential elements of Section 307 IPC. Instead, the appellant’s actions were found to fall under Section 308 IPC, which pertains to attempts to cause culpable homicide without intent to kill.
Further, the court reduced the sentence to the period already served, considering several mitigating factors such as the appellant’s role as the sole breadwinner for his family, his lack of criminal antecedents, and his satisfactory jail conduct.
Facts of the Case:
- Incident Details:
On January 20, 2008, the injured complainant, a Delhi Traffic Police constable, was conducting speed-checking duties on MB Road near the Air Force Station. A red Tata Safari was detected traveling at 65 km/h, exceeding the speed limit of 50 km/h. The complainant signaled the vehicle to stop using a red flag. - Allegations:
Instead of stopping, the driver of the vehicle (appellant) hit the constable with the car, causing him to fall onto the road divider and sustain grievous injuries. These included a right arm fracture and multiple contusions on his legs and thighs, as confirmed by the medical examination. - Investigation:
The appellant was apprehended shortly after the incident by fellow officers. Following the investigation, the police charged the appellant under Sections 186, 353, and 307 IPC. The trial court convicted him and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment, including five years under Section 307 IPC.
Issues for Consideration:
- Did the appellant act with the requisite intention or knowledge to justify a conviction under Section 307 IPC?
- Was the act a deliberate attempt to murder, or should it be categorized as culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 308 IPC?
Petitioner’s Arguments:
- Lack of Intent:
The defense argued that the case was a simple road accident and that the appellant had no intention to kill the complainant. - Witness Credibility:
It was contended that the prosecution witnesses were police colleagues of the injured, rendering them “interested witnesses” whose testimonies should be scrutinized. - Inconsistencies in Evidence:
The defense pointed out discrepancies in the testimonies, including errors in the recorded vehicle number and the failure to treat the red flag used for signaling as evidence. - Absence of Motive:
It was argued that there was no motive or prior animosity to suggest intent or premeditation.
Respondent’s Arguments:
- Relevance of Evidence:
The prosecution emphasized that five eyewitnesses, including the injured constable, consistently identified the appellant as the driver who hit the complainant. - Nature of the Act:
The act of hitting a public servant on duty after ignoring a lawful signal to stop demonstrated sufficient knowledge of potential harm, satisfying the criteria for conviction under Section 307 IPC. - Severity of Injuries:
The prosecution highlighted the grievous nature of the injuries as proof of the appellant’s disregard for the consequences of his actions.
Analysis of the Law:
The court analyzed the elements required for conviction under Section 307 IPC:
- Intention to Kill or Knowledge of Likelihood to Cause Death:
The court reiterated that the presence of intent or knowledge is critical. These elements can be inferred from the nature of the act, the severity of injuries, and the circumstances under which the act occurred. - Applicability of Section 308 IPC:
The court acknowledged that while the injuries were grievous, they did not conclusively establish an intent to kill. Instead, the appellant’s actions reflected recklessness and disregard for life, falling under Section 308 IPC, which deals with culpable homicide attempts without intent to kill.
Precedent Analysis:
The court referred to State of Maharashtra v. Balram Bama Pati (1983) 2 SCC 28, which emphasized:
- Conviction under Section 307 IPC does not require fatal injuries but necessitates clear evidence of intent or knowledge.
- The focus should be on the accused’s mental state rather than the result of the act.
Applying this precedent, the court concluded that the absence of premeditation or direct intent to kill rendered Section 307 IPC inapplicable.
Court’s Reasoning:
- Eye-Witness Testimonies:
Five prosecution witnesses corroborated the sequence of events and identified the appellant. While the defense raised questions about witness reliability, the court found the testimonies consistent and credible. - Nature of the Act:
The appellant’s act of hitting the complainant was instantaneous and lacked any prior design or preparation. - Severity of Injuries:
Though the injuries were grievous, they alone did not establish intent or knowledge sufficient to warrant conviction under Section 307 IPC. - Proportionality in Sentencing:
Considering the appellant’s lack of criminal antecedents, family responsibilities, and satisfactory jail conduct, the court found it appropriate to reduce the sentence.
Conclusion:
The court modified the conviction to Section 308 IPC and reduced the sentence to the period already served. The appellant was released, and his bail bonds and sureties were canceled.
Implications:
This judgment reinforces the principle that intent and knowledge are pivotal in criminal cases involving grievous injuries. It sets a precedent for differentiating between serious offenses like attempted murder and culpable homicide attempts, ensuring proportionality in sentencing while considering mitigating circumstances.
