High Court of Chhattisgarh reaffirms Supreme Court precedents on the ingredients of attempt to murder and unlawful-assembly liability; holds lack of intent to kill mandates conviction under Section 326/149 IPC, binding on Chhattisgarh’s lower courts.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | CRA/192/2005 of Narayan Soni and Ors. Vs State of Chhattisgarh |
| CNR | CGHC010162082005 |
| Decision Date | 02-09-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | Partly allowed |
| Judgment Author | Hon’ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput |
| Court | High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur |
| Bench | Single-Judge Bench |
| Precedent Value | Binding |
| Overrules / Affirms | Affirms conviction under Section 148 IPC; modifies conviction from Section 307/149 IPC to Section 326/149 IPC |
| Type of Law | Criminal Law |
| Questions of Law |
|
| Ratio Decidendi |
The Court held that mere use of deadly weapons and causing grievous injuries in a sudden assault does not by itself establish the intent or knowledge necessary for an offence under Section 307 IPC. In absence of pre-meditated intention or clear incriminating overt acts, the offence must be re-classified under Section 326 read with Section 149 IPC. The conviction under Section 148 IPC is maintained, and sentencing principles under Section 326/149 are applied in line with established Supreme Court precedents. |
| Judgments Relied Upon |
|
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon | The Court applied the two-ingredient test for Section 307 IPC from Parsuram Pandey and Jage Ram; unlawful-assembly liability under Section 149 from Masalti; and sentencing discretion principles from Deo Narain Mandal. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | On 22 July 1998 near Pokhri Bridge, Korba, seven appellants armed with clubs and swords formed an unlawful assembly and assaulted Jagdish Pradhan and five companions, causing grievous and simple injuries. FIR was lodged under Sections 307, 147, 148, 341, 294, 506(B) IPC. The trial court convicted appellants under Sections 148 and 307/149 IPC; one accused was acquitted. |
| Citations |
|
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts in Chhattisgarh |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts in India |
| Follows |
|
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Clarifies that absence of proved intention or knowledge to kill precludes conviction under Section 307 IPC, even if grievous injuries are caused with deadly weapons.
- Holds that sudden assaults without pre-meditation warrant conviction under Section 326 IPC read with Section 149, not Section 307.
- Reaffirms that every member of an unlawful assembly is liable under Section 149 IPC, irrespective of their individual overt act.
- Endorses sentencing discretion guided by proportionality and principles in Deo Narain Mandal.
- Permits enhancement of fine in lieu of additional imprisonment where appropriate, subject to compensation provisions under BNS Sanhita, 2023.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- Examination of Evidence
- Injured eyewitness (PW-2) recanted material parts of his First Information, denying personal observation of weapons or assault.
- Medical evidence showed fractures and grievous injuries, but did not by itself prove intent to kill.
- Ingredients of Section 307 IPC
- Applied two-ingredient test from Parsuram Pandey (2004) 13 SCC 189 and Jage Ram (2015) 11 SCC 366: (a) intention or knowledge to cause death; (b) overt act toward that end.
- Found absence of any settled plan or direct evidence of intent to murder.
- Unlawful Assembly Liability
- Referred to Masalti v. State of U.P. AIR 1965 SC 202: each member incurs liability under Section 149 IPC for acts in prosecution of common object.
- Re-classification of Offence
- In view of missing intent, re-classified offence as Section 326 (voluntarily causing grievous hurt by dangerous weapons) read with Section 149 IPC.
- Maintained conviction under Section 148 IPC (rioting).
- Sentencing Principles
- Adopted proportionality framework from Deo Narain Mandal (2004) 7 SCC 257.
- Noted appellants’ age (28–35), first offence, period already served.
- Substituted sentence with period already undergone and enhanced fine to Rs. 5,000 per appellant.
- Directed compensation under Section 395 of BNS Sanhita, 2023, and extended bail bonds under Section 481.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
- No credible evidence of knives or swords used; statements contradictory.
- Injuries not on vital parts; no intent or knowledge to kill.
- D. Ravindra (PW-4) turned hostile—case not proved.
- If any offence made out, must be under Section 326/325 IPC; seek reduction of sentence.
Respondent
- Eyewitnesses named appellants; medical report confirms fractures and grievous hurt.
- Intention to kill may be inferred from use of deadly weapons and assault on six persons.
- Under Section 149, all members of unlawful assembly are liable even without active overt act.
Factual Background
On 22 July 1998 at about 10 PM near Pokhri Bridge, Manikpur (Korba), the appellants allegedly formed an unlawful assembly armed with clubs and swords and attacked Jagdish Pradhan and five companions. Injured persons were treated at SECL Hospital. FIR was lodged under Sections 307, 147, 148, 341, 294, 506(B) IPC. The Sessions Court convicted seven appellants under Sections 148 and 307/149 IPC and sentenced them; one accused was acquitted. The appellants appealed against Section 307 conviction and sentence.
Statutory Analysis
- Section 307 IPC (Attempt to murder): requires (a) intention or knowledge to cause death; (b) overt act toward that end.
- Section 326 IPC (Voluntarily causing grievous hurt by dangerous weapons).
- Section 148 IPC (Rioting, armed with deadly weapon).
- Section 149 IPC (Unlawful assembly liability).
- Section 395 BNS Sanhita, 2023 (Distribution of fine proceeds as compensation).
- Section 481 BNS Sanhita, 2023 (Extension of bail bonds).
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed
Citations
- Parsuram Pandey v. State of Bihar, (2004) 13 SCC 189 (paras 15–16)
- Jage Ram & Ors v. State of Haryana, (2015) 11 SCC 366 (para 12)
- Masalti v. State of U.P., AIR 1965 SC 202
- Deo Narain Mandal v. State of U.P., (2004) 7 SCC 257 (para 8)