caselaws.org
Supreme Court of India
Sadakat Kotwar vs The State Of Jharkhand on 12 November, 2021Author: M.R. Shah
Bench: M.R. Shah, B.V. Nagarathna
[REPORTABLE]
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1316 of 2021
Sadakat Kotwar and Anr. …Appellant(s)
Versus
The State of Jharkhand …Respondent(s)
JUDGMENT
M. R. Shah, J.
1. 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
Signature Not Verified
herein for the offences under Section 307 read with Section 34 of
Digitally signed by
RASHI GUPTA
Date: 2021.11.12
17:29:53 IST
Reason:
the IPC, the original accused have preferred the present appeal.
1
2. We have gone through the impugned judgment and order
passed by the High Court as well as the judgment and order passed
by the learned Trial Court convicting the accused for the offences
under Section 307 read with Section 34 of the IPC. The
prosecution as such has examined in all 10 witnesses in support of
the case of the prosecution, out of which, there are two injured eye-
witnesses PW7 and PW8. Both of them have supported the case
of the prosecution. Even the other witnesses examined by the
prosecution i.e. PW1, PW2, PW4 and PW10 are consistent in their
statements and have fully supported the case of the prosecution.
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. We see no reason to
doubt the testimony of the witnesses examined on behalf of the
prosecution more particularly, PW7 and PW8 who are the injured
eye-witnesses. It is required to be noted that PW7 and PW8 are the
injured eye-witnesses. As held by this Court in the case of State
of M.P. vs. Mansingh, (2003) 10 SCC 414 para 9, the evidence of
2
an injured eye-witness has great evidentiary value and unless
compelling reasons exist, their statements are not to be discarded
lightly. There are concurrent findings recorded by the courts below
holding the appellants – original accused guilty which do not require
any interference by this Court in exercise of powers under Article
136 of the Constitution of India.
3. Now so far as the 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. The following injuries were found on Jamil Kotwar:
“Incised wound 1″x1″x muscle deep with
Haematoma formation 4″x3″ area in 4th and 5th
inter costal space in mid axillary region of left
axial.”
The following injuries were found on Samsera Bibi:
“Incised wound 1″x1/2″x pleura deep in 8th inter
costal space mid clericular line of left half of chest.”
3
Thus, the nature of injuries was found to be grievous caused
by sharp cutting instrument.
4. In the case of Mahesh Balmiki vs. State of M.P., (2000) 1
SCC 319 in paragraph 9 it is held as under:
“9 . … there is no principle that in all cases of a
single blow Section 302 Indian Penal Code is not
attracted. A single blow may, in some cases, entail
conviction Under Section 302 Indian Penal Code,
in some cases Under Section 304 Indian Penal
Code and in some other cases Under Section 326
Indian Penal Code. The question with regard to
the nature of offence has to be determined on the
facts and in the circumstances of each case. The
nature of the injury, whether it is on the vital or
non-vital part of the body, the weapon used, the
circumstances in which the injury is caused and
the manner in which the injury is inflicted are all
relevant factors which may go to determine the
required intention or knowledge of the offender
and the offence committed by him. In the instant
case, the deceased was disabled from saving
himself because he was held by the associates of
the Appellant who inflicted though a single yet a
fatal blow of the description noted above. These
facts clearly establish that the Appellant had the
intention to kill the deceased. In any event, he can
safely be attributed the knowledge that the knife-
blow given by him was so imminently dangerous
that it must in all probability cause death or such
bodily injury as is likely to cause death.”
4.1 It is not the case of the accused that the offence occurred out of a
sudden quarrel. It also does not appear that the blow was stuck in the
heat of the moment. On the contrary, considering the depositions of
4
PW7 and PW8 the accused persons pushed and took the husband of
PW7 out of the house and thereafter the accused caused the injuries
on PW7 and PW8 and stabbed dagger. Thus, deadly weapons have
been used and the injuries are found to be grievous in nature. As the
deadly weapon has been used causing the injury near the chest and
stomach which can be said to be on vital part of the body, the
appellants have been rightly convicted for the offence under Section
307 read with Section 34 of the IPC. As observed and held by this
Court in catena of decisions 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. Considering the case on hand on the aforesaid principles,
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.
5. 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
5
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.
..………………………………….J.
[M. R. Shah]
……………………………………J.
[A.S. BOPANNA]
New Delhi,
November 12, 2021
6
Comments