Court’s Decision
The Kerala High Court, through Justice Johnson John, dismissed two connected criminal appeals—one filed by the State challenging the acquittal under Section 307 IPC (attempt to murder) and another filed by the first accused challenging his conviction under Section 324 IPC (voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapon).
The Court held that the prosecution failed to establish the requisite intention or knowledge necessary for conviction under Section 307 IPC, observing:
“When injuries are inflicted in a sudden quarrel without premeditation, even a stab injury cannot automatically attract Section 307 IPC unless intention to cause death is proved beyond reasonable doubt.”
Accordingly, the High Court confirmed the conviction of the first accused for the lesser offence under Section 324 IPC and maintained the acquittal of the co-accused under Sections 341, 324, and 307 read with Section 34 IPC.
Facts
The prosecution alleged that on the evening of 5 August 2001, at around 7:30 p.m., near Narasimha Swamy Temple, Udayamperoor, three accused persons—motivated by prior enmity—attacked two men (PWs 1 and 2). It was claimed that the first accused stabbed PW1 with a knife below his left chest, intending to kill him, and inflicted a cut injury on PW2’s left leg when he tried to intervene.
The alleged motive stemmed from a quarrel a year earlier when the accused had an altercation with local children, and PW1 had supported the latter, leading to hostility. PW1 sustained a penetrating chest wound, while PW2 suffered a cut injury near the left ankle.
The police registered an FIR initially under Section 324 IPC on the basis of medical intimation from Medical Trust Hospital, Ernakulam, but later included Section 307 IPC. Following investigation, the accused were charge-sheeted for offences under Sections 341, 324, and 307 read with Section 34 IPC.
The trial court acquitted all three of the graver charges under Section 307 IPC but convicted the first accused for the lesser offence under Section 324 IPC, sentencing him to two years’ imprisonment. The State appealed against the acquittal, while the first accused challenged his conviction.
Issues
- Whether the prosecution proved that the act of the first accused amounted to attempt to murder under Section 307 IPC.
- Whether the trial court erred in acquitting the co-accused of charges under Sections 341, 324, and 307 read with Section 34 IPC.
- Whether the conviction of the first accused under Section 324 IPC was sustainable on evidence.
Petitioner’s Arguments (State)
The State argued that the evidence of PWs 1 and 2, both injured eyewitnesses, was credible and consistent in establishing that the first accused inflicted a stab injury aimed at the chest, a vital part of the body, clearly demonstrating the intention to kill.
Relying on State of Maharashtra v. Balram Bama Patil (1983 KHC 367), the prosecution contended that for Section 307 IPC, the focus is not the result of the act but the intention and knowledge behind it.
It was also argued that PWs 1 and 2 consistently testified that the second and third accused had restrained PW1, facilitating the stabbing. Therefore, the acquittal of co-accused for wrongful restraint and common intention was erroneous. The State urged that the trial court failed to give due weight to the evidentiary value of injured witnesses, whose testimony is entitled to higher credibility.
Respondent’s Arguments (Accused)
The defence countered that the incident was not premeditated, but a sudden fight following a verbal quarrel between PW2 and the first accused. There was no evidence of prior conspiracy or common intention to commit murder.
The defence also emphasized inconsistencies in PWs 1 and 2’s testimonies regarding the involvement of co-accused and highlighted that the names of accused Nos. 2 and 3 were added belatedly in the police report dated 11 August 2001, several days after the FIR, raising doubts about their role.
Citing Hari Kishan and State of Haryana v. Sukhbir Singh (AIR 1988 SC 2127), the defence argued that a single injury inflicted in a sudden quarrel without premeditation does not constitute attempt to murder.
Regarding the recovery of the weapon (MO1 knife), the defence contended that the prosecution failed to comply with Section 27 of the Evidence Act, as the Investigating Officer neither recorded the accused’s exact disclosure statement nor produced independent witnesses for recovery, rendering the discovery unreliable.
Analysis of the Law
The Court reiterated that intention or knowledge as defined under Section 307 IPC must be inferred from the nature of injury, the weapon used, and the circumstances of the act, rather than the mere existence of a wound.
It examined the testimonies of the doctors (PWs 7 and 8). PW7’s medical report confirmed a penetrating wound below the armpit, not the heart area, and no internal organs were damaged. The injury was serious but not sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature.
Justice Johnson John observed that the act, though violent, occurred after a verbal altercation, indicating absence of premeditation. The single stab wound, without further attempt or repeated blows, showed lack of intent to kill.
The Court also noted the deficiencies in the recovery of the knife, referring to Ramanand @ Nandlal Bharti v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2022 KHC 7083), which held that the prosecution must bring on record the exact words of the accused’s disclosure for the recovery to be valid. The prosecution’s failure to produce such details rendered the alleged recovery “legally untenable.”
On the alleged participation of co-accused, the Court found no contemporaneous evidence connecting them. The initial FIR (Exhibit P10) named only the first accused, while the report adding the other two was dated six days later. The Court held that such delay and absence of corroboration “create reasonable doubt,” justifying their acquittal.
Precedent Analysis
- State of Maharashtra v. Balram Bama Patil (1983 KHC 367) – Cited to clarify that intention, not the injury’s gravity, determines Section 307 IPC liability. The Court applied it but found intention unproven.
- Hari Kishan v. Sukhbir Singh (AIR 1988 SC 2127) – Relied upon to hold that sudden quarrel injuries do not attract Section 307 IPC; applied here to justify downgrading to Section 324 IPC.
- Ramanand @ Nandlal Bharti v. State of U.P. (2022 KHC 7083) – Cited to invalidate the discovery of the knife for lack of procedural compliance under Section 27 Evidence Act.
- Balu Sudam Khalde v. State of Maharashtra (2023) 13 SCC 365 – Emphasized that evidence of injured witnesses has superior probative value.
- Ram Vijay Singh v. State of U.P. (2021 (1) KLT Online 1159 (SC)) and T.G. Krishnamurthy v. State of Karnataka (2023 LiveLaw SC 67) – Quoted to reject the “falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus” principle, affirming that courts must separate truth from exaggeration.
- Rakesh v. State of U.P. (2021 (4) KLT Online 1170 (SC)) – Held that recovery of the weapon is not indispensable for conviction if other evidence is consistent.
Court’s Reasoning
Justice Johnson John found that while PWs 1 and 2’s testimonies were credible and corroborated by medical evidence, their account established only voluntary hurt by a dangerous weapon and not attempt to murder. The lack of premeditation, single blow, and absence of repeated assault led the Court to conclude that the act fell within Section 324 IPC, not Section 307 IPC.
On the acquittal of co-accused, the Court emphasized that reasonable doubt regarding their participation must benefit the accused. The delay in naming them and contradictions between the FIR and oral evidence justified upholding their acquittal.
The Court also upheld the trial court’s evaluation that the prosecution’s discovery of the knife was unreliable, but since PWs 1 and 2 identified the weapon in court and the injury was proved, the conviction under Section 324 IPC stood on firm ground.
Conclusion
The Kerala High Court dismissed both appeals — the State’s plea for conviction under Section 307 IPC and the accused’s challenge to his conviction under Section 324 IPC.
The Bench confirmed the two-year imprisonment for the first accused under Section 324 IPC and maintained the acquittal of the remaining accused. It concluded that:
“The totality of circumstances does not indicate that the accused committed the act with intention or knowledge contemplated under Section 307 IPC.”
Both appeals were accordingly dismissed.
Implications
This judgment reinforces that the presence of a stab wound alone does not imply attempt to murder. Courts must examine the intent, weapon, and surrounding circumstances rather than the injury’s severity. It reiterates that sudden quarrels or isolated acts of violence cannot be elevated to “attempt to murder” without clear evidence of mens rea.
The decision also clarifies evidentiary standards under Section 27 of the Evidence Act for recovery of weapons and underscores that injured witnesses’ testimonies carry high evidentiary value if consistent with medical records.
FAQs
1. Is a single stab injury enough for a conviction under Section 307 IPC?
No. The Court held that unless there is clear intention or knowledge to cause death, a single blow in a sudden quarrel does not amount to attempt to murder.
2. Can conviction stand without recovery of the weapon?
Yes. As per Supreme Court precedents, conviction can rest on consistent eyewitness and medical evidence even if the weapon is not recovered.
3. Why were the co-accused acquitted?
Their names were not in the initial FIR, and no contemporaneous or independent evidence corroborated their involvement, entitling them to the benefit of doubt.