STATE OF MADHYA PRADESHversusHARJEET SINGH & ANR.

564                       [2019]
               SUPREME COURT     4 S.C.R. 564
                              REPORTS                       [2019] 4 S.C.R.


A                      STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                        v.
                          HARJEET SINGH & ANR.
                       (Criminal Appeal No. 1190 of 2009)
B                             FEBRUARY 19, 2019
         [L. NAGESHWARA RAO AND INDU MALHOTRA, JJ.]
             Penal Code, 1860 – ss.307 & 324 – Complainant case was
      that he and his brothers were attacked by accused/respondent No.1,
      accused/respondent no.2 and an unidentified person – Complainant
C
      alleged that accused/respondent No.1 stabbed him several times
      with a knife – Trial court convicted the accused/respondent no.1
      u/s.307 IPC and accused/respondent No.2 was convicted u/s. 307
      r/w. 34 IPC – High Court converted the conviction of the accused/
      respondent no.1 from s.307 IPC to s.324 IPC and accused/
D     respondent No.2 was acquitted – On appeal, held: In instant case,
      a perusal of facts and the record clearly indicate that the prosecution
      has proved beyond reasonable doubt that accused/respondent No.1
      had inflicted four injuries on the complainant by using a knife –
      The multiple blows inflicted would prove the intention of causing
      bodily injury likely to cause death of the victim – Stabbing a person
E
      with a knife, near his vital organs would in most circumstances lead
      to the death of the victim, thereby falling squarely within the meaning
      of s.307 IPC – The findings of the High Court that injuries inflicted
      were on ‘unimportant parts’ of the complainant’s body was erroneous
      – Thus, judgment of the High Court qua accused/respondent No.1
F     set aside – Insofar, accused/respondent No.2 is concerned, the High
      Court was right that there was lack of consistency in the deposition
      of the prosecution witnesses with respect to the role of the accused/
      respondent No.2 – Thus, Judgment of High Court qua respondent
      No.2 confirmed.
G           Disposing of the appeal, the Court
            HELD: 1. In the present case, a perusal of the facts and
      the record clearly indicate that the prosecution has proved beyond
      reasonable doubt that Accused /Respondent No. 1 had inflicted
      four injuries, on the Complainant by using a knife. The oral
H
                                     564
 STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH v. HARJEET SINGH & ANR.                       565


testimonies of P.W. 4 and P.W. 5 – the brothers of the Complainant     A
who were eye witnesses, stood corroborated by the medical
evidence. [Para 5.1] [572-B-C]
      2. The act of stabbing a person with a sharp knife, which is
a dangerous weapon, near his vital organs, would ordinarily lead
to the death of the victim. The weapon of offence was a 4-inch         B
long knife which is a dangerous weapon. The Accused /
Respondent No. 1 had assaulted the Complainant with the said
knife, and inflicted multiple injuries on his chest, scapula, back,
and buttocks. The multiple blows inflicted by the Accused /
Respondent No. 1 would prove the intention of causing bodily
injury likely to cause the death of the victim. Stabbing a person      C
with a knife, near his vital organs would in most circumstances
lead to the death of the victim, thereby falling squarely within the
meaning of Section 307. Section 307 uses the term “hurt” which
has been explained in Section 319, I.P.C.; and not “grievous hurt”
within the meaning of Section 320 I.P.C. If a person causes hurt       D
with the intention or knowledge that he may cause death, it would
attract Section 307. [Para 5.6] [573-C-F]
      3. If the assailant acts with the intention or knowledge that
such action might cause death, and hurt is caused, then the
provisions of Section 307 I.P.C. would be applicable. There is no      E
requirement for the injury to be on a “vital part” of the body,
merely causing ‘hurt’ is sufficient to attract S. 307 I.P.C.
[Para 5.6] [574-C-D]
      4. In the Impugned Judgment, the High Court incorrectly
held that the Prosecution has been unable to prove that the            F
Accused /Respondent No. 1 had the intention to commit murder
of the Complainant. The motive of assault by the Accused/
Respondent No. 1 on the Complainant-P.W. 2 was clearly
established by the Prosecution, since there was an existing
dispute which was the subject matter of a court case. It is evident
from the evidence adduced before the Court, and the                    G
circumstances surrounding the case, that the prosecution has
been able to prove the case against Accused /Respondent No. 1
beyond reasonable doubt. The prosecution has successfully
proved that the Accused /Respondent No. 1 had attempted to
                                                                       H
566            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                      [2019] 4 S.C.R.


A     murder the Complainant and the requirements of Section 307
      are made out from the ocular evidence which are corroborated
      by the medical evidence. [Paras 5.8 and 5.9] [575-D-G]
            5. In so far as the case against Accused /Respondent
      No. 2 is concerned; the prosecution has not been able to prove
B     beyond reasonable doubt the charge under Section 307 r. w.
      Section 34 I.P.C. The High Court has rightly held that there is
      lack of consistency in the deposition of the Prosecution witnesses
      with respect to the role of the Accused /Respondent No. 2.
      [Para 7] [576-C}
C           R. Prakash v. State of Karnataka (2004) 9 SCC 27:
            [2004] 2 SCR 281; Jage Ram v. State of Haryana
            (2015) 11 SCC 366 : [2015] 11 SCR 1004; State of
            M.P. v. Kanha @ Omprakash 2019 (2) SCALE 454 –
            relied on.

D           State of Madhya Pradesh v. Mohan & Ors, (2013) 14
            SCC 116 : [2013] 7 SCR 802 – referred to.
                             Case Law Reference
            [2004] 2 SCR 281            relied on           Para 5.6
            [2013] 7 SCR 802            referred to         Para 5.6
E
            [2015] 11SCR 1004           relied on           Para 5.6
            2019 (2) SCALE 454          relied on           Para 5.6


F           CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal
      No. 1190 of 2009.
            From the Judgment and Order dated 03.01.2006 of the High Court
      of Madhya Pradesh, Jabalpur, Bench at Gwalior in Criminal Appeal
      No. 657 of 1998.
G           Varun K. Chopra, Mrs. Swarupama Chaturvedi, Gurtej Pal Singh,
      B. N. Dubey, Mukesh Kumar, Ms. Indira Bhakar, Ms. Aparna Trivedi,
      Shantanu Singh, Advs. for the Appellant.
           Sanjiv Das, Ekansh Bansal, Parmanand Gaur, Advs. for the
      Respondents.
H
 STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH v. HARJEET SINGH & ANR.                            567


      The Judgment of the Court was delivered by                            A
       INDU MALHOTRA, J. 1. The present Criminal Appeal has
been filed by the State of Madhya Pradesh against the judgment and
order dated 03.01.2006 passed by the Gwalior Bench of the Madhya
Pradesh High Court, in Criminal Appeal No. 657/1998. The Criminal
Appeal was filed by the Respondents against their conviction under          B
Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as “Section
307”). The High Court reduced the conviction of the Respondents from
Section 307 to Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred
to as “Section 324”).
      2. The facts of the case, briefly stated, are as under:               C
    2.1 The case of the Complainant – Sukhdev, as recorded in the
        F.I.R., is that on 12.11.1997 the Complainant-Sukhdev along
        with his brothers – Balveer Yadav and Deshraj Yadav, had gone
        to the District Court, Ashok Nagar to attend the hearing of their
        case against Accused /Respondent No. 1 – Harjeet Singh.             D
        After the hearing, at around noon, the Complainant –Sukhdev
        and his brothers crossed the road, and were standing in front of
        the Jail, when Ramji Lal – Accused /Respondent No. 2 alongwith
        an unidentified assailant called Sardar caught hold of Balveer
        Yadav and Deshraj Yadav. The Accused /Respondent No. 1–
        Harjeet Singh grabbed the Complainant – Sukhdev, and stabbed        E
        him several times with a knife, inflicting blows on the chest,
        scapula, back, and hips.
        Accused /Respondent Nos. 1 and 2, alongwith Sardar ran away
        from the spot. The Complainant – Sukhdev further stated that
        he would be able to identify Harjeet Singh, and the two             F
        assailants once he sees them.
    2.2 Immediately after the assault on 12.11.1997, the Complainant –
        Sukhdev was admitted to the Civil Hospital, Ashok Nagar for
        treatment.
                                                                            G
    2.3 The medical examination of the Complainant – Sukhdev was
        conducted by Dr. M. Bhagat–P.W.6 at the Civil Hospital, Ashok
        Nagar, which recorded the following injuries :
        (i) Stab Wound – 3.5 x 1 cm –deep in the chest cavity, over the
             left side of the chest.
                                                                            H
568        SUPREME COURT REPORTS                         [2019] 4 S.C.R.


A       (ii) Spindle shaped incised wound – 3 x 2 cm –muscle deep,
             present on the upper region of the right buttocks.
        (iii) Stab Wound – 2 x 1 cm – over sub-scapula region, left side.
              Bleeding was present.
         (iv) Stab Wound – 1 x 1 cm – over illeal region of hip, left side.
B             Bleeding was present.
      The medical report further stated that the injuries were caused by a
         sharp-edged, pointed object.
      2.4 The Complainant – Sukhdev was referred to the District
C         Hospital, Guna wherein X-Ray of his chest region was
          conducted by P.W. 8 – Dr. Raghuvanshi. The Report states
          that there was”haziness in lungs, left side of chest, present
          due to trauma of chest”.
         Dr. Raghuvanshi – P.W. 8 stated in his deposition that the lungs
D        of the Complainant – Sukhdev suffered injury, which resulted in
         blood seeping in the lungs, leading to haziness in the X-Ray
         image.
      2.5 On 24.11.1997, the Accused /Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 were
          arrested by the Police. The weapon of offence i.e. the knife
          allegedly used by Accused /Respondent No. 1 was recovered
E
          from the bushes next to the bridge, on the statement given by
          Accused /Respondent No. 1.
      2.6 The Spot Map of the crime scene was prepared, samples of
          blood-stained soil, and ordinary soil, were recovered from the
          scene of the crime.
F
      2.7 The Accused /Respondent No. 1 was charged under Section
          307, while Accused /Respondent No. 2 was charged under
          Section 307 read with Section 34 of the I.P.C.
      2.8 The case was registered as Case No. 10/98 before the First
G         Addl. Sessions Judge, Ashok Nagar, Guna District, Madhya
          Pradesh (Sessions Court).
      2.9 The Sessions Court vide Judgment dated 30.11.1998, found
          Accused /Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 guilty of the offence of
          ‘attempt to murder’. The findings of the Sessions Court were
H         as follows:
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH v. HARJEET SINGH & ANR.                           569
             [INDU MALHOTRA, J.]

  i. The Complainant –Sukhdev, and his brothers – Deshraj Yadav           A
     and Balveer Yadav who were eye-witnesses of the crime, and
     were present at the scene of occurrence, and were examined
     by the Court as P.W.s 2, 4, and 5 respectively. Their evidence
     was held to be reliable, and was corroborated by the
     examination of P.W. 3 – an independent witness who was an
                                                                          B
     Advocate. P.W. 3 appeared before the Court, and deposed that
     on 12.11.1997 he heard a commotion outside the Court. On
     reaching the spot, he found the Complainant – Sukhdev
     (P.W. 2) lying in a pool of blood. On further inquiry, he was told
     that the Accused /Respondent No. 1 – Harjeet Singh had stabbed
     the Complainant – Sukhdev (P.W. 2) multiple times.                   C
  ii. The medical evidence was held to be sufficient to prove that the
      injuries inflicted by Accused /Respondent No. 1 upon the
      Complainant – Sukhdev (P.W. 2) could be fatal.
  iii. With respect to Accused /Respondent No. 2 – Ramji Lal, the
       F.I.R. stated that the Accused /Respondent No. 2 along with        D
       an unidentified Sardar held the brothers of the Complainant
       (P.W.s 4 and 5), while the Accused /Respondent No. 1 stabbed
       the Complainant – Sukhdev (P.W. 2) multiple times.
  iv. During the trial, the Complainant – Sukhdev (P.W. 2) deposed
      that Accused /Respondent No. 2 – Ramji Lal grabbed him when         E
      Accused /Respondent No. 1 – Harjeet Singh stabbed him
      multiple times.
  v. The Sessions Court held the prosecution had proved the case
     beyond reasonable doubt.
                                                                          F
       It was held that the Accused /Respondent No. 2 would be
      equally guilty. The common intention of Accused /Respondent
      No.2 was proved by the assistance provided by him to
      Accused / Respondent No. 1, in committing the offence.
  vi. The Sessions Court convicted the Accused /Respondent No. 1
                                                                          G
      under Section 307, sentencing him to 5 years R.I. along with a
      Fine of Rs. 1000/-.
     Accused /Respondent No. 2 was convicted under Section 307
     read with Section 34 I.P.C. and sentenced to 5 years R.I. along
     with a fine of Rs. 1000/-.
                                                                          H
570          SUPREME COURT REPORTS                        [2019] 4 S.C.R.


A     2.10 Both the Accused /Respondents filed a common appeal to
          challenge their conviction by the judgment dated 30.11.1998
          before the Madhya Pradesh High Court being Criminal Appeal
          No. 657/1998.
      2.11 The Madhya Pradesh High Court vide Impugned Judgment
B         dated 03.01.2006 partly allowed the Appeal filed by the
          Accused / Respondents. It was held that the Complainant –
          Sukhdev (P.W. 2) had nowhere stated in his deposition/evidence
          that the intention of the Accused /Respondents was to commit
          murder.
C        The High Court held that the Complainant – Sukhdev (P.W. 2)
         suffered four injuries. One of the injuries was on the left side of
         the chest. The depth of this injury was upto the cavity over the
         left side of the chest, but the lung was not affected. The other
         three injuries sustained by the Complainant – Sukhdev, are on
         the back, and the hips. The Accused /Respondents having an
D        intention to commit murder would never cause injuries over such
         “unimportant” parts of the body.
         It was also noted that the knife by which the injuries were
         allegedly inflicted had a blade of five fingers which could not be
         more than four inches.
E
        With regard to the liability of the Accused /Respondent No. 2 –
        Ramji Lal, the High Court held that there appears to be lack of
        consistency in the statements of the Complainant – Sukhdev
        and his two brothers who were eye-witnesses :

F       a.    The first version of the Complainant – Sukhdev (P.W. 2)
             which has been written in the Dehati Nalsi, is that the
             Accused /Respondent No. 2 –Ramji Lal, and one unknown
             Sardar both caught hold of his two brothers. It is not
             mentioned in this document that Accused /Respondent No. 2
             – Ramji Lal or the other unknown Sardar, caught hold of him
G            at the time of the incident. Conversely, in paragraph 2 of his
             statement, the Complainant – Sukhdev has stated that he was
             held by Accused /Respondent No. 2 – Ramji Lal at the time
             of the incident, and in paragraph 5 he has stated that after
             sustaining the injuries of the knife, Accused /Respondent
             No. 2 caught hold of his brother Deshraj (P.W. 4).
H
 STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH v. HARJEET SINGH & ANR.                              571
              [INDU MALHOTRA, J.]

       b. On the other hand, Deshraj Yadav (P.W. 4) – the first brother       A
          of the Complainant – Sukhdev, has stated that he was being
          held by one unknown Sardar and not by Accused /
          Respondent No. 2.
       c. Balveer Yadav (P.W. 5) – the second brother of the
          Complainant – Sukhdev, has stated that he was being held by         B
          Accused /Respondent No. 2 –Ramji Lal and his brother was
          held by one unknown Sardar.
          The High Court found that there was no consistency in the
          deposition of P.Ws 2, 4, and 5 read with the F.I.R.
          Considering these circumstances, it was held that there could       C
          be no presumption that Accused /Respondent No. 2 – Ramji
          Lal had committed any act having a common intention with
          the Accused /Respondent No. 1 – Harjeet Singh, in causing
          the injuries to the Complainant – Sukhdev (P.W. 2).
       The mere fact that Accused /Respondent No. 2 had                       D
accompanied Accused /Respondent No. 1 cannot raise the presumption
of having common intention.
       It was further held that it was not justifiable to conclude that the
Accused /Respondents had any intention to commit murder, or cause
such injury which could have been deemed as sufficient to cause death         E
in the ordinary course of nature. At most, the act of causing the injuries
could be held punishable under Section 324, I.P.C. as punishment for
voluntarily causing simple hurt.
      The High Court converted the conviction of Accused /
Respondent No. 1 from Section 307 to Section 324 I.P.C. and reduced           F
the sentence to one year R.I. and a Fine of Rs. 1,000. The period
already undergone would be adjusted in the sentence awarded to him.
      Accused /Respondent No. 2 was acquitted and his conviction
from the charge of Section 307 was set-aside.
      3. The State filed the present Special Leave Petition, against the      G
Judgment and Order of the Madhya Pradesh High Court dated
03.01.2006. Special leave to appeal was granted vide Order dated
08.07.2009.


                                                                              H
572             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                           [2019] 4 S.C.R.


A           4. We have heard learned Counsel for both the parties,
      considered the submissions, and perused the evidence record.
      5.    FINDINGS AND ANALYSIS
           5.1 In the present case, a perusal of the facts and the record clearly
               indicate that the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt
B              that Accused /Respondent No. 1 –Harjeet Singh had inflicted
               four injuries, on the Complainant by using a knife.
               The oral testimonies of Deshraj Yadav (P.W. 4) and Balveer
               Yadav (P.W. 5) – the brothers of the Complainant – Sukhdev
               who were eye witnesses, stood corroborated by the medical
C              evidence.
           5.2 The prosecution also examined an independent witness –
               Advocate(P.W. 3), who had come to the Court, and after
               hearing the commotion, reached the site of occurrence, where
               he found the Complainant – Sukhdev lying in a pool of blood
D              along with his brothers – P.W.s 4 and 5. The independent
               witness – Advocate (P.W. 3) deposed that on enquiring further
               about the matter, he was informed by P.W.s 4 and 5 – the
               brothers of the complainant – Sukhdev, that Accused /
               Respondent No. 1 – Harjeet Singh had attacked and stabbed
E              the Complainant.
           5.3 Dr. Raghuvanshi – the Radiologist (P.W. 8) has stated in his
               deposition that the injury caused to the Complainant - Sukhdev
               in the chest had resulted in blood seeping into the lungs. The
               Medical Report records that the first stab wound was inflicted
F              on the chest of the Complainant, which injured his lung, and
               caused bleeding. Hence, the finding of the High Court that the
               stab wound on the chest remained upto the depth of the cavity
               over left side of the chest and the lungs were not affected, is
               factually incorrect, and contrary to the medical record.
           5.4 The Accused /Respondent No. 1 inflicted other stab wounds on
G
               the scapula, which were bleeding even at the time when the
               Complainant – Sukhdev (P.W. 2) was examined at the
               Hospital. There was also a stab wound present on the upper
               region of the right buttock, and another one over the illeal region
               of the left hip which was bleeding at the time of the medical
H              examination.
     STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH v. HARJEET SINGH & ANR.                              573
                  [INDU MALHOTRA, J.]

             The injuries inflicted on the Complainant – Sukhdev (P.W. 2)         A
            have been corroborated by the medical evidence on the basis of
            the medical reports and the depositions of Dr. Bhagat (P.W. 6)
            and Dr. Raghuvanshi (P.W. 8).
             Dr. Raghuvanshi (P.W. 8) has stated that the blood seeping in
            the left lung of the Complainant – Sukhdev (P.W. 2), was due to       B
            the injury sustained on the chest. Such an injury could not be
            considered to be an injury on an “unimportant part” of the body.
          The findings of the High Court that the injuries inflicted were on
           “unimportant parts” of the Complainant’s body, is erroneous.
        5.5 The act of stabbing a person with a sharp knife, which is a           C
            dangerous weapon, near his vital organs, would ordinarily lead
            to the death of the victim.
              The weapon of offence was a 4-inch long knife which is a
            dangerous weapon. The Accused /Respondent No. 1 had
            assaulted the Complainant with the said knife, and inflicted          D
            multiple injuries on his chest, scapula, back, and buttocks. The
            multiple blows inflicted by the Accused /Respondent No. 1 would
            prove the intention of causing bodily injury likely to cause the
            death of the victim. Stabbing a person with a knife, near his vital
            organs would in most circumstances lead to the death of the           E
            victim, thereby falling squarely within the meaning of Section
            307.
        5.6 Section 307 uses the term “hurt” which has been explained in
            Section 319, I.P.C.; and not “grievous hurt” within the meaning
            of Section 320 I.P.C.                                                 F
     If a person causes hurt with the intention or knowledge that he
may cause death, it would attract Section 307.
          This Court in R. Prakash v. State of Karnataka,1 held that :
            “…The first blow was on a vital part, that is on the temporal
          region. Even though other blows were on non-vital parts, that           G
          does not take away the rigor of Section 307 IPC……. It is
          sufficient to justify a conviction under Section 307 if there is
          present an intent coupled with some overtact in execution

1
    (2004) 9 SCC 27
                                                                                  H
574                SUPREME COURT REPORTS                              [2019] 4 S.C.R.


A            thereof. 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
B
             at all to actual wounds. The Sections 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.”
C                                                            (emphasis supplied)
             If the assailant acts with the intention or knowledge that such
      action might cause death, and hurt is caused, then the provisions of Section
      307 I.P.C. would be applicable. There is no requirement for the injury to
      be on a “vital part” of the body, merely causing ‘hurt’ is sufficient to
D     attract S. 307 I.P.C.2
             This Court in Jage Ram v. State of Haryana3 held that:
             “12. For the purpose of conviction under Section 307 IPC,
             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 accused had attempted to commit the murder
E            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.
F            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
G            of the accused, parts of the body where the injury was caused
             and the nature of injury and severity of the blows given etc.”
                                                            (emphasis supplied)

      2
           State of Madhya Pradesh v. Mohan & Ors (2013) 14 SCC 116
      3
          (2015) 11 SCC 366
H
     STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH v. HARJEET SINGH & ANR.                         575
                  [INDU MALHOTRA, J. ]

     This Court in the recent decision of State of M.P. v.Kanha @            A
Omprakash4 held that:
     “The above judgements of this Court lead us to the conclusion
     that proof of grievous or life-threatening hurt is not a sine
     qua non for the offence under Section 307 of the Penal Code.
     The intention of the accused can be ascertained from the                B
     actual injury, if any, as well as from surrounding
     circumstances. Among other things, the nature of the weapon
     used and the severity of the blows inflicted can be considered
     to infer intent.”
                                                (emphasis supplied)
   5.7 In view of the above-mentioned findings, it is evident that the       C
       ingredients of Section 307 have been made out, as the intention
       of the Accused /Respondent No. 1 can be ascertained clearly
       from his conduct, and the circumstances surrounding the
       offence.
        5.8 In the Impugned Judgment, the High Court incorrectly held that   D
            the Prosecution has been unable to prove that the Accused /
            Respondent No. 1 had the intention to commit murder of the
            Complainant. The motive of assault by the Accused /
            Respondent No. 1 on the Complainant –Sukhdev (P.W. 2) was
            clearly established by the Prosecution, since there was an       E
            existing dispute which was the subject matter of a court case.
        5.9 It is evident from the evidence adduced before the Court, and
            the circumstances surrounding the case, that the prosecution
            has been able to prove the case against Accused /Respondent
            No. 1 beyond reasonable doubt. We find that the prosecution      F
            has successfully proved that the Accused /Respondent No. 1 –
            Harjeet Singh had attempted to murder the Complainant –
            Sukhdeo and the requirements of Section 307 are made out from
            the ocular evidence which are corroborated by the medical
            evidence.
                                                                             G
        5.10 In view of the above-mentioned discussion, the High Court
            was in error in reducing the sentence of Accused /Respondent
            No. 1 – Harjeet Singh from Section 307 I.P.C. to Section 324
            I.P.C., and sentencing him to 1 year R.I. along with Fine of
            Rs. 1,000.
4
    Criminal Appeal No. 1589/2018, decided on 04.02.2019.                    H
576                SUPREME COURT REPORTS                       [2019] 4 S.C.R.


A            6. The present Criminal Appeal is partially allowed. The judgment
      of the High Court qua Accused /Respondent No. 1, is set-aside, and the
      sentence awarded to him by the Sessions Judge vide Judgment dated
      30.11.1998 is restored. The Accused /Respondent No. 1 is directed to
      undergo the remainder of the 5 year Sentence awarded by the Sessions
      Court, and surrender before the Sessions Court, Ashok Nagar, Guna,
B
      M.P. within 2 weeks from the date of this Judgment.
             7. In so far as the case against Accused /Respondent No. 2 –
      Ramji Lal is concerned; the prosecution has not been able to prove
      beyond reasonable doubt the charge under Section 307 r. w. Section 34
      I.P.C. The High Court has rightly held that there is lack of consistency in
C     the deposition of the Prosecution witnesses with respect to the role of
      the Accused /Respondent No. 2 – Ramji Lal.
            We affirm the judgment of the High Court qua Accused No. 2,
      and confirm the Order of acquittal passed in his favour on 03.01.2006.

D            The Criminal Appeal along with all pending Applications, if any,
      are disposed of in the above terms.
            Ordered accordingly.


      Ankit Gyan                                                 Appeal disposed of.
E




F




G




H