Prakash Chandra Yadav Vs. State of Bihar & Ors  Insc 1069
(12 October 2007)
Sinha & Harjit Singh Bedi
out of SLP (Crl) No.3244 of 2007) S.B. Sinha, J.
This appeal is directed against a judgment and order dated 22.12.2006 passed by
a Division Bench of the Patna High Court allowing the appeals preferred by the
respondents herein and dismissing the criminal revision filed by the appellants
factual matrix of the matter, as stated in the First Information Report, is
that at about 12.30 pm on 3.2.1994, the informant, Prakash
Chandra Yadav (PW-10) went to Railway Authority Club, Jamalpur to receive the
Chief Railway Engineer, Eastern Railway Gorakhpur and Additional Divisional
Engineer, Sonepur. He waited for the said officers but having come to learn
that they would come later, left the club for his home at about 3.15 pm by his motorcycle. Mantu Kumar (PW-7) was with him
on the said motorcycle.
Accused, Shyamdeo, named in the First Information Report as also one unknown
man, were standing on the road and were allegedly noticed by the informant
after coming out of the southern gate of the club. When they were proceeding
towards the west, Shyamdeo ordered to kill the informant whereupon Janardan Yadav
took out a bomb from his bag and hurled the same towards them. It, however, did
not explode. Respondent Satya Narayan Yadav also hurled a bomb towards the
informant. It exploded but the informant did not sustain any injury. Several
persons assembled at the said place whereupon, Shyamdeo Yadav allegedly chased
them with his licensed gun.
said incident is said to have been witnessed by Suresh Yadav, Jawahar Yadav,
Ram Naresh Prasad and several others. Besides Prakash Chandra Yadav (PW-10) and
the informant, the prosecution examined Suresh Yadav (PW-3), who is the brother
of the informant, Jawahar yadav (PW-4) cousin of the informant, Chunkeshwar
(PW-2), Ram Naresh Yadav (PW-5), father of the informant and Mantu Kumar (PW-7)
(who was the pillion rider) besides B.K. Mishra (PW-9), the Assistant Director,
Regional Forensic Science Laboratory, Muzaffarpur, the Chemical Examiner who
had examined the alleged explosive substances recovered from the place of
Accused were charged for alleged commission of offence under Sections 334 and
307/109 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 and 4 of the Explosive
Substances Act. Motive for commission of the said offence is said to be rivalry
inter se between the parties in regard to grant of railway contract(s).
learned Sessions Judge found the respondents guilty for commission of an
offence under Section 307/109B of the Indian Penal Code but acquitted them from
the charges under Sections 3 and 4 of the Explosive Substance Act on the ground
that no sanction from the appropriate authority had been obtained therefor. Janardan
Yadav and Satya Naryan was convicted under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code
and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years and Shyamdeo Yadav
was convicted under Section 307/109 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to
undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years.
appeal was preferred by the respondent before the High Court.
first informant also filed a criminal revision application against the judgment
and order acquitted the respondents under Sections 3 and 4 of the Explosive
Substances Act as also for enhancement of sentence. Both, the criminal appeal
as also the revision application, were taken up for hearing together by a
Division Bench of the Patna High Court.
High Court in its judgment started with the deposition of the prosecution
witnesses. As regards the deposition of Prakash Chandra Yadav (PW-10)
(informant), it was noticed that he had fully supported the case of the
prosecution. Similar narration of the statements made by the prosecution
witnesses were carried out the High Court from paragraphs 8 to 13 of the
judgment. Paragraphs 14 to 16 referred to the submissions made by the learned
advocate for the respondents. Paragraphs 17 to 19 were devoted to the
submissions made by the counsel for the appellant in support of the criminal
revision application. Paragraph 20 thereof recorded that the sanction accorded
by the District Magistrate did not sub-serve the requirements of law.
of the High Court is contained only in paragraph 21 thereof.
say the least, the judgment of the High Court is wholly unsatisfactory. The
High Court nowhere arrived at the finding that the prosecution witnesses
contradicted themselves in material particulars so as to render their
testimonies untrustworthy. It did not arrive at a finding that the findings of
the Trial Judge were either unsatisfactory or contrary to the legal principles.
The High Court opined that as no injury had been caused to the informant and
PW-7, a case under Section 307 of the IPC is not made out. The said finding, in
our opinion, is not legally sound.
Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code reads as under :
307. Attempt to murder.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 or murder, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for
a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine; and if
hurt is caused to any person by such act, the offender shall be liable either
to imprisonment for life, or to such punishment as is hereinbefore
From a bare perusal of the said provision, it is evident that first part
thereof does not contemplate that receipt of any injury on the part of the
victim is a pre-requisite for convicting an accused thereunder. In the event
injuries are received, the second part of Section 307 would be attracted. The
necessary ingredients for attracting the first part of Section 307 of the
Indian Penal Code is intention or knowledge. The legal position would be
evident from the illustration (c) appended to the said provision which reads as
A, intending to murder Z, buys a gun and loads it. A has not yet committed the
offence. A fires the gun at Z. He has committed the offence defined in this
section, and if by such firing he wounds Z, he is liable to the punishment
provided by the latter part of the first paragraph of this section. Mr. V.
Shekhar, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent has drawn
our attention to a decision of this Court in Parsuram Pandey & Ors. v.
State of Bihar [(2004) 13 SCC 189] wherein, inter alia,
it was held :
constitute an offence under Section 307 two ingredients of the offence must be
intention of or knowledge relating to commission of murder; and
the doing of an act towards it.
the purpose of Section 307 what is material is the intention or the knowledge
and not the consequence of the actual act done for the purpose of carrying out
the intention. The section clearly contemplates an act which is done with
intention of causing death but which fails to bring about the intended
consequence on account of intervening circumstances. The intention or knowledge
of the accused must be such as is necessary to constitute murder. In the
absence of intention or knowledge which is the necessary ingredient of Section
307, there can be no offence of attempt to murder.
which is a state of mind cannot be proved by precise direct evidence, as a fact
it can only be detected or inferred from other factors. Some of the relevant
considerations may be the nature of the weapon used, the place where injuries
were inflicted, the nature of the injuries and the circumstances in which the
incident took place. The said decision, therefore, itself is an authority
for the proposition that intention of or knowledge relating to the commission
of murder and the doing of an act towards it are the two ingredients of the
offence under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code.
High Courts judgment, therefore, cannot be sustained. It is set aside
accordingly. The matter is remitted to the High Court for consideration of the
matter afresh. We, however, make it clear that we have not gone into the merit
of the matter. The High Court is requested to hear and dispose of the criminal
appeal expeditiously. The appeal is allowed with the aforementioned directions.