Supreme Court: In a criminal appeal filed by the convict against the judgment and order passed by the Bombay High Court, wherein the Court has dismissed an appeal and confirmed the judgment and order of conviction passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, for the offence under Sections 307 and 332 of the Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC') and directed the convict to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years and two years for the said offences respectively, the division bench of Bela M. Trivedi and Dipankar Datta, JJ. while dismissing the appeal, has said that merely because the injuries sustained by the complainant were very simple in nature, that would not absolve the convict from being convicted for the offence under Section 307 of the IPC.
In the case at hand, a complaint was made against the convict for demanding ransom and threatening the public at large. The Police Inspector, therefore, ordered the police head constable to take custody of the convict in the Police Station for enquiry in connection with the complaint.
The convict submitted that even if the case of the prosecution was held to be proved against the convict, the injuries suffered by the complainant were very simple in nature and would not attract offence under Section 307 of the IPC.
The State submitted that after the incident in question the convict was involved in four cases, out of which three cases were registered during the pendency of the present appeal and as such, he had misused the liberty granted to him by this court while releasing him on bail.
The Court opined that the Trial Court, as well as, the High Court have rightly appreciated the evidence and convicted the accused for the offence punishable under Sections 307 and 332 of the IPC.
Further, the Court said that merely because the injuries sustained by the complainant were very simple in nature, that would not absolve the convict from being convicted for the offence under Section 307 of the IPC.
The Court said that intention coupled with the overt act committed by the accused is important to consider. In the instant case, it was proved by cogent evidence that the convict had tried to assault the complainant with Gupti and that too on his head. Though the complainant received an injury on his right shoulder while avoiding blowing on his head, from the blunt part of the Gupti, such an overt act on the part of the convict would be covered by the offence punishable under Section 307 of the IPC.
Having regard to the cases filed against the convict pending the present appeal, the Court said that it is not inclined to take any lenient view and to reduce the sentence imposed by the Trial Court and confirmed by the High Court. Thus, the Court dismissed the present appeal and directed the convict to surrender before the Trial Court within a period of four weeks from today.
[SK Khaja v State of Maharashtra, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1093, Order dated 23-08-2023]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For Appellant(s): Advocate-On-Record Sudhanshu S. Choudhari
For Respondent(s): Advocate Yugandhara Pawar Jha, Advocate Siddharth Dharmadhikari, Advocate-On-Record Aaditya Aniruddha Pande, Advocate Bharat Bagla, Advocate Sourav Singh, Advocate Aditya Krishna
Buy Penal Code, 1860 HERE
Yes sir ji