# Santram v. State of U.P

- **Citation:** (2022) 9 ILRA 35
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2022-08-08
- **Case number:** Jail Appeal No. 81 of 2019
- **Bench:** Karunesh Singh Pawar
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/santram-v-state-of-u-p-49025
- **Pages:** 7

## Headnote

(A) Criminal Law - Jail Appeal - Indian
Penal
Code,
1860
-
Sections
452/307/504/506 - Catching hold - proof
of life threatening injury is not required
for the offence under Section 307 I.P.C. -
rather it is the intention of the accused
which matters - which can be ascertained
from surrounding circumstances as well as
the injury sustained, nature of the weapon
used and the severity of the blows etc. -
testimony of the injured witnesses has a
great evidentiary value and unless the
compelling
reasons
are
present,
the
statement of the injured witnesses cannot
be discarded lightly. (Para -20,22 )

Two incised wounds on the body of the injured
- attracts the second part of Section 307 I.P.C. -
entire series of events show that there was a
clear intention to commit murder - accused first
threatened the injured then went away -
thereafter again came armed with a knife in his
hand - gave two repetitive blows on the
abdomen of the incised wounds.(Para -25 )

HELD:-Trial court rightly convicted accused
under Section 307 I.P.C. read with Section 452,
504, 506 I.P.C. . Conviction order of the trial
court is upheld. (Para - 24)

Jail appeal dismissed. (E-7)
List of Cases cited:-

St. of M.P. Vs Mansingh, (2003) 10 SCC 414

## Text

9 All. Santram Vs. State of U.P.
35
(2022) 9 ILRA 35
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 08.08.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE KARUNESH SINGH PAWAR, J.

Jail Appeal No. 81 of 2019

Santram ...Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. ...Opposite Party

Counsel for the Appellant:
Sri Raj Kumar Sharma (A.C.)

Counsel for the Opposite Party:
A.G.A.

(A) Criminal Law - Jail Appeal - Indian
Penal
Code,
1860
-
Sections
452/307/504/506 - Catching hold - proof
of life threatening injury is not required
for the offence under Section 307 I.P.C. -
rather it is the intention of the accused
which matters - which can be ascertained
from surrounding circumstances as well as
the injury sustained, nature of the weapon
used and the severity of the blows etc. -
testimony of the injured witnesses has a
great evidentiary value and unless the
compelling
reasons
are
present,
the
statement of the injured witnesses cannot
be discarded lightly. (Para -20,22 )

Two incised wounds on the body of the injured
- attracts the second part of Section 307 I.P.C. -
entire series of events show that there was a
clear intention to commit murder - accused first
threatened the injured then went away -
thereafter again came armed with a knife in his
hand - gave two repetitive blows on the
abdomen of the incised wounds.(Para -25 )

HELD:-Trial court rightly convicted accused
under Section 307 I.P.C. read with Section 452,
504, 506 I.P.C. . Conviction order of the trial
court is upheld. (Para - 24)

Jail appeal dismissed. (E-7)
List of Cases cited:-

St. of M.P. Vs Mansingh, (2003) 10 SCC 414

(Delivered by Hon'ble Karunesh Singh
Pawar, J.)

1. Heard Shri Raj Kumar Sharma,
learned amicus curiae for the appellant and
Shri S.K. Ojha, learned A.G.A. for the
State.

2. The present jail appeal has been
filed against the judgment and order dated
27.02.2019 passed by Additional Sessions
Judge, Meerut in Session Trial No.
277/2017, crime No. 390/2016, under
Sections
452/307/504/506
I.P.C.,
P.S.
Hastinapur, District Meerut whereby the
appellant
has
been
convicted
under
Sections 307 I.P.C. to undergo seven years
simple imprisonment with a fine of Rs.
2000/-, under Section 452 I.P.C. to undergo
two years of simple imprisonment with a
fine of Rs. 1000/-, under Section 504 I.P.C.
to
undergo
two
years
of
simple
imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 1000/- and
under Section 506 I.P.C. to undergo two
years of rigorous imprisonment with a fine
of Rs. 1000/-, with default provisions.

3. The prosecution case as per the
written report is that the brother-in-law of
Raju son of the informant Kanwar Pal came
since few days to do the agricultural work.
Santram (accused-appellant) who is from
the village of the informant and is a
scoundrel person by threatening to Raju, he
used to take money for drinking liquor.
Today on 21.10.2016 in the evening
Santram demanded money for liquor and
when Raju did not gave money, then Sant
Ram threatened him to teach a lesson. After
sometime at around 6:20 PM, Raju, the
complainant and his son Kanwar Pal were
36 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
talking inside the house, then Sant Ram
came abusing inside the house with a knife
in his hand forcibly and by telling that he
will not leave Raju alive today, he after
catching hold of Raju with an intent to kill
attacked from knife in his abdomen. In a
pursuit to save by the complainant, the
second blow was inflicted by the appellant
in the stomach of Raju and as a result
thereof his intestine came out. While
raising alarm, the complainant tried to
catch, the accused Santram turned and ran
hurriedly and in this process, in the iron
gate his head crushed, still he ran away.
Raju was taken from ambulance. After this
a written report given by the complainant
Vijay Pal and on the basis of that chik
F.I.R. was registered on the same day.

4. The injured Raju was examined at
Community Health Centre, Hastinapur,
Meerut. He received incised wound 9 cm x
2 cm depth on the left side of abdomen, 12
cm below left nipple. The second injury
was also an incised wound 2 cm x 5 cm,
bone depth right side of chest 13 cm below
right nipple. These injuries were kept under
observation. Doctor opined that the injury
caused by a sharp edged object and
bleeding was fresh. A supplementary report
was prepared wherein x-ray of chest and
ultrasound were done which were found to
be normal. The investigating officer after
taking examination of the prosecution
witnesses prepared the site plan and after
completing the investigation has submitted
the
charge
sheet
under
Section
452/307/504/506 I.P.C. Learned trial court
vide order dated 21.06.2017 has framed the
charges on the appellant-accused under
Section 452/307/504/506 I.P.C.

5. PW-1 in his examination-in-chief
has reiterated the prosecution version
written in the written report clearly stating
that Santram with a knife in his hand came
inside the house and with an intent to kill
caused two blows on the stomach of Raju
and prior to that on the same day i.e.
21.10.2016 Santram demanded money
from Raju for drinking liquor and when
Raju refused to pay, Santram
after
extending threats went away. In the cross,
he has stated that he had not seen Santram
abusing and threatening Raju. He has also
stated that money was not demanded in
front of him. It has been further stated that
the incident took place in his house and
when he came out from the house he saw
Santram running after assaulting Raju with
knife, however, had not seen Santram
stabbing Raju. He has further stated that
apart from him and his son there was no
one else.

6. PW-2 is Raju (injured witness) has
stated that on 21.10.2016 in the evening
Santram demanded money from him for
drinking liquor which he refused to give
and then Santram threatened him to teach
lesson and went away. After some time, at
about 6:20 PM, while he was sitting with
PW-1 and his son inside their house and
were talking, then Santram armed with
knife abusing forcibly came inside the
house and told him that he will not leave
him leave him alive today. After saying
this, with an intent to kill, he attacked upon
him with knife which came in his stomach
and he got injured. After raising alarm, the
accused-appellant Santram ran away. In the
cross, he has stated that he was attacked by
Santram twice in the stomach. He has lastly
stated that after some time Rishipal also
came there.

7. PW-3 Kanwar Pal, in chief has
supported the prosecution case and while
reiterating the prosecution version, he has
also said that in the evening around 6 PM
9 All. Santram Vs. State of U.P.
37
Santram came inside his house and started
demanding money from Raju for drinking
liquor. Upon refusal by Raju, he went away
abusing. After some time he came armed
with knife and abusing forcibly entered into
their house and told Raju that today he will
not leave him alive and gave two knife
blows in the stomach of Raju. Upon alarm
being raised, the villagers came and
Rishipal also came. In the cross, he has
stated that he did not see Santram talking to
Raju and when he came out, Rishipal was
coming to his house.

8. PW-4 Vijay Kumar is a formal witness
who has proved chik F.I.R. and primary GD.

9. PW-5 is Rishi Pal Singh in whose
presence at the time of assault has been denied
by PW-1, PW-2 and PW-3 and all three
witnesses have said that he came after assault
was already made.

10. PW-6 is doctor Satish Chandra who
has medically examined the injured. He further
stated that the injuries have come from sharp
edged weapon, however, are simple in nature.
He has also said that two incised wounds were
found on the body of the injured and such
injury may not cause death.

11. PW-7 Gaurav Gupta who conducted
the operation of the injured and prepared a
supplementary report. He has also stated that
on the basis of supplementary report, he could
not say that on which part of the stomach, the
injured sustained injuries. He has denied the
suggestion that the injuries could not have
caused death. He further denied suggestion
that the injuries were simple in nature.

12. PW-8 is the investigating officer
who has conducted the investigation and
has supported the prosecution case. The
statement of the accused under Section 313
Cr.P.C. were recorded where his defence
was of denial and while denying the
incident he has stated that he has been
falsely implicated due to enmity.

13. Learned counsel for the appellant
submits that there is inconsistency in the
statement of the prosecution witnesses. The
medical report does not corroborate the
prosecution version and nature of the injury
does not attract the offence under Section
307 I.P.C.

14. Learned A.G.A. has opposed this
contention submitting that grievous injury
is not a sin qua non for bringing home the
charges under Section 307 I.P.C.

15. Perusal of the site plan which is
exhibited as Exh. Ka-4 prepared by the
investigating
officer,
shows
that
the
occurrence has been committed inside the
house of Vijay Pal Singh (PW-1). The
testimony of the injured witness Raju
corroborates the prosecution case who has
clearly said that he had been assaulted
twice by the appellant. PW-1 in his chief,
though has claimed himself to be eye
witness of the occurrence, however, in his
cross, he has again said that the incident
took place inside his house and he did not
see Santram talking to Raju or abusing or
threatening him rather when he came out,
he only saw Santram running after stabbing
Raju. Thus, PW-1 though has not seen the
appellant stabbing Raju, however, he saw
him running after stabbing Raju. PW-1 has
corroborated the testimony of PW-2.
Likewise PW-3 Kanwar Pal, in the
examination-in-chief, has claimed himself
to be the eye witness, however, in the cross
he has stated that he did not see Santram
stabbing Raju rather he has stated that after
hearing alarm when he came out, Santram
was gone. He has stated that he has not
38 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
seen Santram stabbing Raju, thus, PW-3 is
also not the eye witness of the incident,
however, he was very much present in the
house and had heard the alarm and when he
came out, he saw that Raju has held his
stomach and there were two wounds of
knife on his stomach and thus his presence
cannot be doubtful. PW-3 has supported the
prosecution version.

16. The presence of PW-5 Rishipal has
been denied at the time of occurrence by PW1, PW-2 and PW-3, therefore, his testimony is
of no relevance.

17. PW-6 Doctor Satish Chandra
Bhaskar has corroborated the prosecution
version and has proved the two incised
wounds sustained by the injured and has
further corroborated that these injuries could
have come from sharp edged weapon. Doctor
Satish Chandra Bhaskar has conducted
operation as well as ultrasound and x-ray of
the injured.

18. The cumulative reading of the
statement of PW-1, PW-2 and PW-3 shows
that the incident took place on 21.10.2016
around 6 PM which has been committed in
two parts. In the first part, the money was
demanded by the appellant from the injured
Raju which was denied and upon this the
appellant has threatened the injured. In the
second part of the incident, the appellant
returned and entered into the house of PW-1
with a knife in his hand and gave two blows
in the stomach of the injured, as a result
thereof, he got injured. The testimony of the
injured witness PW-2 is intact and has
supported the prosecution case which is
corroborated by the testimony of the doctor
PW-6 and also of PW-1 and PW-2.

19. Law in this regard is settled; the
testimony of the injured witness alone is
sufficient to prove the charge under Section
307 I.P.C., whereas in this case apart from the
testimony of the injured witness, there is
corroborative medical evidence in form of
injury report and the testimony of PW-6,
coupled with the testimony of PW1 and PW3 who were very much present in the same
house, it is further corroborated by the
testimony of the investigating officer who has
prepared the site plan.

20. The testimony of the injured
witnesses has a great evidentiary value and
unless the compelling reasons are present, the
statement of the injured witnesses cannot be
discarded lightly as held by the Apex Court in
the case of "State of M.P. v. Mansingh,
(2003) 10 SCC 414".

21. On due consideration to the
argument advanced by the parties as well as
perusal of the record, so far as the contention
of the learned counsel for the appellant that
the injury sustained by the injured was simple
in nature and therefore no offence under
Section 307 I.P.C. is made out is concerned, it
will be appropriate to extract Section 307
I.P.C.:-

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 of 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 1[imprisonment for life], or to
such
punishment
as
is
hereinbefore
mentioned. Attempts by life convicts.--
2[When any person offending under this
section is under sentence of 1[imprisonment
for life], he may, if hurt is caused, be
punished with death.
9 All. Santram Vs. State of U.P.
39

Perusal of the definition shows
that an act done by the accused with an
intention or knowledge and under such
circumstances that, if he by that act caused
death, he would be guilty of murder. The
next part of Section 307 I.P.C. refers to a
heavier punishment in case hurt is caused
pursuant to such act. Language of the
section makes it clear that mere sustaining
injury is not required to attract offence
under Section 307 I.P.C., however, in case
hurt is caused by such act, the punishment
can be severe. Likewise it is not necessary
that the injury should be such from which
under normal circumstances death may be
caused. In State of Maharashtra v Balram
Bama Patill (1983)2 SCC 28, the Supreme
Court held that it is not necessary that a
bodily injury sufficient under normal
circumstances to cause death should have
been inflicted. Relevant portion of para 9 of
Balram Bama Patill's case is reproduced as
under :-

"9...To justify a conviction under
this section it is not essential that bodily
injury capable of causing death should
have been inflicted. Although the nature
of injury actually caused may often give
considerable assistance in coming to a
finding as to the intention of the accused,
such intention may also be deduced from
other circumstances, and may even, in
some cases, be ascertained without any
reference at all to actual wounds. The
section makes a distinction between an act
of the accused and its result, if any. Such
an act may not be attended by any result
so far as the person assaulted is
concerned, but still there may be cases in
which the culprit would be liable under
this section. It is not necessary that the
injury actually caused to the victim of the
assault
should
be
sufficient
under
ordinary circumstances to cause the death
of the person assaulted. What the Court
has to see is whether the act, irrespective
of its result, was done with the intention or
knowledge
and
under
circumstances
mentioned in this section. An attempt in
order to be criminal need not be the
penultimate act. It is sufficient in law, if
there is present an intent coupled with
some overt act in execution thereof."

 (Emphasis supplied)

In State of M P v Saleem (2005)5 SCC
554, the Supreme Court held as under:

"13. It is sufficient to justify a
conviction under Section 307 if there is
present an intent coupled with some overt
act in execution thereof. It is not essential
that bodily injury capable of causing
death should have been inflicted. The
section makes a distinction between the
act of the accused and its result, if any.
The court has to see whether the act,
irrespective of its result, was done with the
intention
or
knowledge
and
under
circumstances mentioned in the section.
Therefore, an accused charged under
Section 307 IPC cannot be acquitted
merely because the injuries inflicted on
the victim were in the nature of a simple
hurt."

In Jage Ram v State of Haryana
(2015)11 SCC 366, it has been held that to
establish the commission of an offence
under Section 307 , it is not essential that a
fatal injury capable of causing death should
have been inflicted. To reproduce:

"12.
For
the
purpose
of
conviction under Section 307 IPC, the
prosecution has to establish (i) the
intention to commit murder; and (ii) the
act done by the accused. The burden is on
the prosecution that the accused had
40 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
attempted to commit the murder of the
prosecution witness. Whether the accused
person intended to commit murder of
another person would depend upon the
facts and circumstances of each case. To
justify a conviction under Section 307
IPC, it is not essential that fatal injury
capable of causing death should have
been caused. Although the nature of
injury
actually
caused
may
be
of
assistance in coming to a finding as to the
intention of the accused, such intention
may
also
be
adduced
from
other
circumstances. The intention of the
accused is to be gathered from the
circumstances like the nature of the
weapon used, words used by the accused
at the time of the incident, motive of the
accused, parts of the body where the
injury was caused and the nature of injury
and severity of the blows given, etc."

In Md. Umar Ali and others Vs.
State of Bihar and others, the Patna High
Court held as under:-

"19. It is well settled that
evidence of injured eye witness cannot be
discarded in toto on the ground of
inimical disposition towards the accused
or improbabilities of narrating the details
of actual attack. His evidence has to be
scrutinized with caution taking into
account the factum of previous enmity
and tendency to exaggerate and to
implicate as many as possible. A witness
who is a natural one and is the only
possible eye witness in the circumstances
of a case cannot be said to be interested. A
witness is interested only when he derives
some benefit from the result of the
litigation. If evidence of injured witness if
otherwise reliable and trustworthy then it
carries more weight and cannot be thrown
away merely because it is not corroborated
by
any
independent
witness.
Little
discrepancies cannot make evidence of
injured witness unacceptable, when his
evidence as a whole has a ring of truth. "

22. Hence from the discussion herein
made above as well as the law laid down by
the Apex Court in the case of Balram Bama
Patil (supra) it is evident that proof of life
threatening injury is not required for the
offence under Section 307 I.P.C. rather it is
the intention of the accused which matters
and which can be ascertained from
surrounding circumstances as wellas the
injury sustained, nature of the weapon used
and the severity of the blows etc. In this
case the accused first threatened the injured
then went away and thereafter again came
armed with a knife in his hand and entered
into the house of PW-1 and gave two
repetitive blows on the abdomen of the
injured. The fact is that the accused after
extending threat again came on the same
day and gave two blows to the injured. Not
only this while entering into the house of
the injured witness PW-2 he has also told
that he will not leave PW-2 alive today and
thereafter gave two blows on the vital part
of the body i.e. abdomen. The entire series
of events show that first threat was given
by the appellant to the injured and secondly
after some time the appellant came
prepared with knife in his hand and again
said that he will not leave PW-2 alive today
and after saying this gave two blows to the
accused, coupled with the injury report of
the injured PW-2 prepared by the doctor
PW-6 Dr. Satish Chandra Bhaskar who has
said that two incised wounds by a sharp
edged weapon have been sustained by the
injured has duly corroborated by the
prosecution version read with testimony of
PW-1 and PW-3. All these attending
circumstances show that there was a clear
intention to commit murder. The presence
9 All. Gaya Prasad Vs. State of U.P.
41
of two incised wounds on the body of the
injured attracts the second part of Section
307 I.P.C.

23. In this case the contention of
learned counsel for the appellant that the
injuries were not grievous rather were
simple has no force; the injuries found to
be caused by a sharp edged weapon and
they were kept under observation, x-ray
and ultrasound was done; the accused had
clear motive for committing the crime as he
often used to take money from PW-2 for
drinking liquor and on the date of
occurrence since the money was refused by
PW-2, the accused committed the offence
after extending him threat and breaking
into the house of PW-1.

24. In view of the above observation,
I am of the opinion that the trial court has
rightly convicted the accused under Section
307 I.P.C. read with Section 452, 504, 506
I.P.C. and therefore the jail appeal is
dismissed and accordingly, the conviction
order of the trial court is upheld.

25. On the question of sentence,
learned amicus curiae appearing for the
appellant submits that condition of the
appellant is very poor and he could not
arrange a lawyer so that he can apply bail
in the trial court during trial. He was
arrested on 28.11.2016 and against the
maximum
sentence
of
seven
years
approximately about 5 years 9 months as
per
custody
certificate
have
been
incarcerated by the appellant and therefore,
it is submitted that looking to the fact that
the appellant has no prior criminal history,
he has already incarcerated more than five
years in jail, the sentence of the appellant
may be reduced to the period undergone by
the appellant.

26. Learned AG.A. though has
opposed the appeal, however, could not
dispute the fact that the appellant has
already undergone 5 years and 9 months
approximately in jail and he is in custody
since 28.11.2016.

27. On due consideration to the
argument advanced by the learned counsel
for the parties as well as considering the the
financial position of the appellant, the
sentence and fine imposed by the trial court
vide
its
judgment
and
order
dated
27.02.2019 is reduced to the period already
undergone by the appellant.

28. Let a copy of this judgment be
transmitted to the learned trial court as well
as concerned Jail Superintendent for
compliance. Lower court record be sent
back to the lower court.

I
appreciate
the
assistance
rendered by Shri Raj Kumar Sharma,
learned Amicus Curiae, and we direct the
State Government to pay ₹ 20,000/- as
honorarium.
----------
(2022) 9 ILRA 41
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 01.09.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE DR. KAUSHAL JAYENDRA
THAKER, J.
THE HON'BLE NALIN KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J.

Criminal Appeal No. 163 of 2013
&
Criminal Appeal No. 18 of 2013

Gaya Prasad ...Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. ...Respondent