S.307 IPC | Manner Of Attack & Injury Relevant To Ascertain If Accused Intentionally Attempted To Commit Murder: Kerala High Court

Justice A. Badharudeen found that causing only one injury on the shoulder of the victim would not be sufficient to conclude that an accused intended to cause murder to attract the offence punishable under Section 307 IPC.

The Court was considering an appeal preferred by the 1^st accused in a case where he was convicted of the offences punishable under Sections 307, 341 and 323 of IPC. The prosecution allegation is that the appellant along with 4 other accused formed themselves into am unlawful assembly with the common object of causing the death of the PW1 and bodily injury on PW1 to PW3.

It is further alleged that the accused indulged in the act of rioting armed with deadly weapons, wrongfully restrained these three persons and the appellant/1^st accused stabbed on the back of PW1 with a knife knowing or intending that it would cause death. They were charged with Sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 323, 307 read with 149 of the IPC.

After trial, the appellant was sentenced to 7 years' rigorous imprisonment for offence of Section 307, simple imprisonment of 1 month and fine of Rs. 500 for the offence under Section 341 and rigorous imprisonment of 6 months and fine of Rs. 1000 for the offence under 323 IPC. The appellant sought to assail the conviction and sentence before the High Court.

The appellant disputed his identity before the High Court but the same was not raised before the trial court. The Court noted that though the victim did not specifically identify the accused at the dock, he had, during cross-examination, referred to the latter as the accused who assaulted him. Thus, the contention regarding identity was found unsustainable.

The Court also perused the deposition of PW1 victim, in which he had deposed that he is familiar with the appellant. He had also stated that the appellant came with the other accused and attacked him while he along with his friends were visiting another friend in the hospital. They were restrained by the accused who uttered filthy words and thereafter, the appellant stabbed him and attacked others who attempted to rescue him.

He also mentioned the treatment he underwent and identified the weapon as well as the shirt worn by the appellant. In cross-examination as well, the PW1's statement suggested the motive and identified the appellant.

Perusing the same as well as the evidence given by the other witnesses of the incident and the doctor who examined the injured, the Court was of the opinion that it cannot be said for sure that the appellant committed the offence under Section 307 IPC.

“It is the well settled law that, in order to attract the offence under Section 307 of IPC, there must be an intentional attempt to commit murder. In the instant case, going through the manner in which the incident occurred and the attack at the instance of the 1st accused, either intention or knowledge to cause death of PW1 could not be found and the 1st accused only caused one injury that also on the shoulder of PW1, as borne from the wound certificate. Therefore, on no stretch of imagination, it is safe to conclude that the 1st accused committed the offence punishable under Section 307 of IPC,” the Court observed.

However, the Court remarked that the evidence establishes commission of offences under Sections 324, 341 and 323 IPC.

Thus, the Court allowed the appeal in part by setting aside the conviction under Section 307 IPC but upholding the conviction under the other provisions. It also modified the punishment awarded to the victim and awarded only fine as punishment, part of which is to be paid to the victim.

Case No: Crl.A. No. 972 of 2014

Case Title: Moosantepurakkal Manaf v. State of Kerala

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 236

Counsel for the appellant: AVM. Salahudin, A.D. Divya, Emil Stanley, Babu S. Nair

Counsel for the respondent: Renjith George – Sr. Public Prosecutor

Click to Read/Download Judgment