Case Note & Summary
The appeal arose from a conviction under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code for attempt to murder. The appellant was the eldest son of the complainant Samayya Latkari. On the night of 14 February 2014, the appellant became annoyed with his father for not providing more food after the available food was consumed. The appellant first attempted to set the father's house on fire using dry tendu palm leaves, but the father foiled it. Enraged further, the appellant picked up an axe and ran after his father. He caught him on the road in front of the house and gave axe blows to his left eye and left cheek, causing the father to fall unconscious. The father lost his left eye permanently but survived. The next morning, another son Tirupati lodged an FIR with Asarali police station. After investigation, the appellant was tried in Sessions Case No. 41 of 2014. The trial court convicted him and sentenced him to ten years' rigorous imprisonment with fine. The appellant appealed, contending that the prosecution evidence contained discrepancies regarding the recovery of the axe and the spot panchanama, and suggesting the alternative possibility that the father fell on sharp stones, sustaining the injuries. The State argued that no foundation was laid for this defence and that the evidence was consistent. The High Court dismissed the appeal. The court held that the father's testimony as eye-witness was credible and corroborated by neighbour Vyankati Kumari and medical evidence. The minor discrepancy about where the axe was recovered did not affect the core prosecution case. The defence of accidental fall was never put to the victim in cross-examination, and the mere presence of injuries on the appellant did not prove a scuffle. The court emphasized that a blow with a dangerous weapon like an axe to a vital organ such as the face carries a high probability of causing death, and the appellant must be presumed to have such knowledge. All ingredients of Section 307 were satisfied. Therefore, the conviction and sentence were upheld.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Offence of Attempt to Murder - Section 307 Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Murderous Assault - The appellant gave axe blows to his father's left eye and cheek, a vital area; such blow with a dangerous weapon like an axe to the face is in all probability likely to cause death, and the appellant could be presumed to have such knowledge; the fact that the victim survived due to luck is immaterial. Held that all ingredients of Section 307 IPC are proved. (Paras 14) B) Evidence - Appreciation of Evidence - Discrepancies - Evidence Act, 1872 - The father's testimony as an eye-witness was found credible; minor discrepancy regarding the recovery site of the axe (spot vs. house) did not shake the core evidence, which was supported by other witnesses and spot panchanama. Held that such discrepancy is not fatal. (Paras 11) C) Criminal Procedure - Defence of Accidental Injury - Burden of Proof - Evidence Act, 1872 - The appellant's defence that the father might have sustained injuries from accidentally falling on sharp stones was not established; no foundation laid in cross-examination, no suggestion of fight; presence of injuries on appellant alone insufficient without further material. Held that the defence was not proved. (Paras 9) D) Appeal and Revision - Appellate Court's Power - No Interference - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - The appellate court found the trial court's appreciation correct and sentence proper; no scope for interference. Appeal dismissed. (Paras 15)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant attempted to murder his father by giving axe blows to his left eye and cheek; and whether the trial court's conviction and sentence for offence under Section 307 IPC were proper and require interference.
Final Decision
Appeal dismissed; conviction and sentence under Section 307 IPC confirmed.
Law Points
- Section 307 IPC attempt to murder
- murderous assault
- knowledge of likely death
- vital organ face
- axe a dangerous weapon
- burden of proof on accused for defence
- evidence of eye witness reliable
- father-son relationship
- no material discrepancy
- recovery of weapon under Section 27 Evidence Act
- accidental fall not proved
- spot panchanama consistent
