{"id":1222,"date":"2023-12-15T14:53:13","date_gmt":"2023-12-15T09:23:13","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/?p=1222"},"modified":"2023-12-15T14:53:13","modified_gmt":"2023-12-15T09:23:13","slug":"supreme-court-held-that-the-nature-of-the-weapon-used-and-the-severity-of-the-blows-inflicted-can-be-considered-to-infer-intent-of-the-accused","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/supreme-court-held-that-the-nature-of-the-weapon-used-and-the-severity-of-the-blows-inflicted-can-be-considered-to-infer-intent-of-the-accused\/","title":{"rendered":"Supreme court held that the nature of the weapon used and the severity of the blows inflicted can be considered to infer intent of the accused"},"content":{"rendered":"

SIVAMANI AND ANR.\u00a0 \u00a0 <\/strong>\u00a0(APPELLANTS)\u00a0 Vs.\u00a0 \u00a0<\/strong>STATE REPRESENTED BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u2026 RESPONDENT<\/strong><\/p>\n

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 3619 OF 2023<\/p>\n

(2JB, VIKRAM NATH and AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH JJ., delivered by AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH, J<\/strong>.)<\/p>\n

Facts:<\/u><\/strong> The present appeal is directed against the Final Order and Judgment dated 06.08.2021 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Madras in Criminal Appeal No.228 of 2015, whereby the appeal filed by the appellants against their conviction by the Trial Court under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and imposition of fine of Rs.1000\/- each has been confirmed, but the sentence of 10 years Rigorous Imprisonment has been reduced to 5 years Rigorous Imprisonment.<\/p>\n

Issue:<\/u><\/strong> Whether the appellant is guilty of the offence under section 307 IPC?<\/p>\n

Arguments on behalf of counsel for appellants:<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n

Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the case of the prosecution is that there was previous enmity between the Complainant-Prakash alias Chinnaraj\/PW1 and Accused No.1. It was submitted that PW1 and Accused No.1 had a dispute concerning a lane between their houses. A civil case in such respect was also pending between them. During the pendency of the suit, an Advocate Commissioner was appointed through the Court, who measured the land 4 in dispute and allotted portions to Accused No.1 and PW1. PW1 had put up fencing within the portion allotted to him, and on account of this, Accused No.1 used to quarrel with him. Fifteen days prior to the incident, Accused No.1 had removed the fencing and again picked up a quarrel with PW1 and threatened to kill him. Pursuant thereto, Accused No.1 conspired with the Accused Nos.2, 3, 4 and 5 to put an end to the life of PW1. Consequently, on 15.09.2012, while PW1 was in his grocery shop, on the instigation of Accused No.1, Accused Nos.2 and 5 along with the appellants (Accused Nos.3 and 4) reached the shop. Accused No.2 is stated to have abused PW1 in filthy and obscene language and beaten him with force on his cheek by hand. The appellants tried to attack PW1 with a knife, but PW1 escaped from their attack and caught hold of the appellants\u2019 hands, as a result of which, sustained abrasion injuries on his right shoulder and left thumb. On hearing this alarm, PW2-Indirani (PW1\u2019s mother) came to his rescue and at that time, the Accused No.5 5 attacked her with a cold drink bottle on her back, causing a simple injury. Meanwhile, the neighbours came to the scene of occurrence and tried to save PW1 and on seeing them, the Accused Nos.2 and 5 escaped in an auto-rickshaw.<\/p>\n

Arguments on behalf of counsel for respondent:<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n

Learned counsel for the State submitted that the appellants being armed with knives (one each) clearly indicates that they intended to kill and it was only due to providence that their lives were saved.<\/p>\n

Held:<\/u><\/strong> The court disposed off the appeal and held that, \u201cHaving considered the facts and circumstances of the case and submissions of learned counsel for the parties, this Court is convinced that the Impugned Judgment of the High Court requires to be interfered with. Admittedly, there is no allegation of repeated or severe blows having been inflicted. Even the injuries on PW1 and PW2 have been found to be simple in nature, which is an additional point in the appellants\u2019 favour. We are further inclined to accept the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellants that from the materials on record, only offences under Sections 3232 and 3243 of the IPC can be made out. As such, the conviction under Section 307, IPC is unsustainable. In the background of the discussions made hereinabove and on taking an overall view, the Impugned Judgment is varied only to the extent that the conviction of the appellants stands modified to that under Sections 323 and 324 of the IPC and the sentence imposed is also reduced to the period already undergone. The fine imposed is maintained. The appellants stand discharged of the liabilities of their bail bonds, if any.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

SIVAMANI AND ANR.\u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0(APPELLANTS)\u00a0 Vs.\u00a0 \u00a0STATE REPRESENTED BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u2026 RESPONDENT CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 3619 OF 2023 (2JB, VIKRAM NATH and AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH JJ., delivered by AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH, J.) Facts: The present appeal is directed against the Final Order and Judgment dated 06.08.2021 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Madras […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":1226,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[12],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-1222","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-judgement"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1222","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1222"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1222\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":1227,"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1222\/revisions\/1227"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/1226"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1222"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1222"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1222"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}