Direct Evidence Not Required To Prove Intent For Offence Of Attempt To Murder U/S. 307 IPC: Patna High Court

The ruling arose from a criminal revision petition involving an incident where the accused individuals allegedly trespassed into the informant’s residence over a land dispute. They reportedly threatened the informant to withdraw a pending legal case and assaulted her family members. It was specifically alleged that one of the respondents, acted on the instructions of his father and fired a gunshot at the informant, striking her on the left cheek and fracturing her mandible.

A Bench of Justice Bibek Chaudhuri said, “Now comes the question, as to how, intention or knowledge can be proved. At the, prima facie, stage of consideration of charge and even during trial, it is very difficult, if not impossible, to prove intention or knowledge of the accused by way of direct evidence, because intention and knowledge comes from culpable state of mind and there cannot be a direct evidence of such culpable intention. Intention can be gathered from the surrounding circumstances, from the nature of wound received by the victim, from the manner of assault inflicted by the accused, from the nature of weapon used etc.”

The Court further added, “Knowledge can be presumed from the act of the accused which he attempted to commit, but ultimately failed. In order to prove a charge under Section 307 of the I.P.C., it is even not necessary for the prosecution to show that the victim received any injury. If the prosecution is successful to prove that the victim committed some overtact which, if successful, would have caused murder to the victim, the accused may be held guilty for committing offence under Section 307 of the I.P.C.”

The petitioner challenged a discharge order issued by the Additional Sessions Judge, Siwan, arguing that the court had wrongly concluded there was insufficient evidence to frame a charge under Section 307 IPC. The petitioner emphasized that medical documentation from Patna Medical College and Hospital confirmed the existence of a gunshot wound that caused a bone fracture, which the lower court failed to properly consider.

The High Court noted the contradictory nature of the lower court’s findings. The Court pointed out, “Surprisingly enough, the learned Additional Sessions Judge-IX, Siwan, directed the learned A.C.J.M.-X, Siwan to frame charge under Section 27 of the Arms Act, which is an offence of using firearm. Thus, the learned Sessions Judge came to a finding that a firearm was used or a firing was made by a firearm, in course of the alleged incident. However, he did not consider the discharge certificate obtained by the Investigating Officer from Patna Medical College and Hospital.”

Moreover, the Court noted that the lower court had also failed to consider an alternative charge under Section 326 IPC (voluntarily causing grievous hurt by dangerous weapons or means), even though the case diary documented a serious gunshot injury leading to a jaw fracture. Instead, the Additional Sessions Judge had inexplicably directed that only a minor charge under Section 323 IPC (voluntarily causing hurt) be framed.

The High Court termed this approach as not only flawed but also perverse, declaring the lower court’s order both illegal and irrational.

Consequently, the High Court allowed the criminal revision, set aside the discharge order, and directed the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Siwan, to transmit the case record back to the court of the Additional Sessions Judge-IX, Siwan, with instructions to frame charges against the accused under Section 307 IPC.

Cause Title: Pushpa Devi v. The State of Bihar Patna & Ors.

Appearance:

Petitioner: Advocate Bipin Bihari

Respondents: Advocates Shyam Kumar Singh, Ramchandra Singh, Ashok Kumar Verma