In a case involving Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code (attempt to murder), the division bench of the Chhattisgarh High Court, composed of Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal and Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey, held on December 19 that the non-examination of the injured is fatal to the prosecution case because it denies the accused their right to cross-examination. 

According to a Bench, an examination of the victim is necessary to establish whether the accused is the one who assaulted him and whether his injuries were severe enough to be likely to result in his death.

"... the said injured was not examined by the prosecution for the reasons well known to the prosecution, the appellant was deprived to cross examining said Ganiram that he was not present on the spot and the injuries which were allegedly caused to him were not sufficient to cause death, due to non-examination of Ganiram, the appellant has been deprived of the opportunity to cross-examine him which is fatal to the prosecution."

The Court added:

"The prosecution was obliged to examine Ganiram to prove whether he was assaulted by the appellant and whether he has suffered injuries which were sufficient to cause death in terms of Section 307 of the IPC. In that case, the appellant could have an opportunity to cross-examine injured Ganiram qua his presence and his injuries which were sufficient to cause death."

The doctor who examined the injured was deemed by the court to have made conflicting testimonies. He initially claimed that the wounds were recent and severe in character. However, he acknowledged the injuries were minor during the cross-examination before denying it afterwards. 

Furthermore, it was noted that the prosecution had not interviewed the injured man to confirm his injuries. The prosecution was required to undertake this examination and provide the appellant with a chance to cross-examine harmed, the court added.

Next, the Division Bench looked at the elements necessary to establish an offence under Section 307 of the IPC: 

(i) the death of a human being was attempted;

(ii) the accused attempted to cause the death or it occurred as a result of the accused's action; and 

(iii) Such an act was committed with the purpose to cause death or such physical injury that: (a) the accused knew was likely to result in death; or (b) was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to result in death.

In Hari Singh v. Sukhbir Singh & Ors, the Supreme Court decided that to determine compliance with Section 307, the court must determine whether the act was carried out with the intention or knowledge and under the conditions specified in the clause. There can be no crime of "attempt to murder" without the accused having the essential knowledge or purpose to qualify as a murderer. 

The Bench also stated that the intention should be determined by considering all of the circumstances, rather than just the outcomes.

"Under Section 307 the intention precedes the act attributed to accused. Therefore, the intention is to be gathered from all circumstances, and not merely from the consequences that ensue. It has been further held that the nature of the weapon used, manner in which it is used, motive for the crime, severity of the blow, the part of the body where the injury is inflicted are some of the factors that may be taken into consideration to determine the intention."

No incriminating items were taken from the appellant aside from the fact that he was discovered hiding after the incident and was eventually caught. The court recognised that he was not detained there. 

The prosecution's inability to establish that the appellant had knowledge or purpose to commit murder or to go in that direction led the court to conclude that Section 307 IPC had not been committed against him. 

As a result, the appeal was granted. The appellant's conviction and the terms he received were overturned, and he was declared innocent.

Case Title: Sannu Kudami v. State of Chhattisgarh
Citation: CriminalAppealNo.337of 2022

Link: https://highcourt.cg.gov.in/hcbspjudgement/judgements_web/CRA337_22(19.12.22).pdf