Nobody can enter into the mind of the accused and his intention has to be ascertained from the weapon used, part of the body chosen for assault and the nature of the injury caused: Supreme Court of India

When the deadly weapon – dagger has been used, there was a stab injury on the stomach and near the chest which can be said to be on the vital part of the body and the nature of injuries caused, it is rightly held that the appellants have committed the offence under Section 307 IPC. The aforesaid has been established by the supreme court of India while adjudicating the case of Sadakat Kotwar and Anr. v. The State of Jharkhand [CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1316 of 2021] which was decided upon by a single judge bench comprising Justice M.R. Shah on 12th November 2021.

The facts of the case are as follows. The prosecution has been successful in proving the case against the accused that Appellant No.2 – Refaz Kotwar stabbed PW8 – Mohd. Jamil Kotwar with a dagger on the right side of his stomach and on left ribs and that PW7 was also stabbed by Appellant No.1 – Sadakat Kotwar with a dagger in her ribs. It is to be noted that PW7 and PW8 are the injured eye-witnesses. Submissions on behalf of the appellants that at the most the case may fall under Section 323 of the IPC and therefore, the courts below have erred in convicting the accused for the offence under Section 307 IPC is concerned, it is the case on behalf of the appellants that it was a case of single blow/injury. However, it is required to be noted that the injury of a single blow was on the vital part of the body i.e. stomach and near chest. Nature of the injury is a grievous injury caused by a sharp cutting weapon. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order dated 01.07.2019 passed by the High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi in Criminal Appeal (SJ) No.393 of 2004 by which the High Court has upheld the conviction of the appellants herein for the offences under Section 307 read with Section 34 of the IPC, the original accused have preferred the present appeal.

The Court perused the facts and arguments presented. it was of the opinion that “We are in complete agreement with the view taken by the learned Trial Court as well as the High Court. Now so far as the reliance placed upon the decision of this Court in Jai Narain Mishra and Ors. Vs. State of Bihar, (1971) 3 SCC 762 is concerned, on facts such decision shall not be applicable more particularly considering the subsequent decisions as well as the weapon used, nature of injuries caused on the vital part of the body. In view of the above and for the reasons stated hereinabove, the present appeal fails and the same deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed.”

Click here to read the Judgment

Judgment reviewed by Aryan Bajaj

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Open chat