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 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: 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. 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 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 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. 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, (ii) Spindle shaped incised wound -3x2 cm - muscle deep, present on the upper region of the right buttocks, (iii) Stab Wound -2x1 cm - over sub-scapula region, left side. Bleeding was present, (iv) Stab Wound -1x1 cm - over illeal region of hip, left side. 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 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 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 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. 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 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 as follows: i. The Complainant - Sukhdev, and his brothers - Deshraj Yadav 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 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. 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 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 Accused /Respondent No. 1 - Harjeet Singh stabbed him multiple times. v. The Sessions Court held the prosecution had proved the case beyond reasonable doubt. 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 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/-. 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 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. 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 up to 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 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. 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 : 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 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). b. On the other hand, Deshraj Yadav (P.W. 4) - the first brother 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 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 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 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 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 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 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.;