When Section 307 Conviction Was Reduced to Grievous Hurt

The Supreme Court dealt with three connected criminal appeals arising from a common judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, which had affirmed the trial court’s conviction and sentence. The prosecution case was that Amar Singh, an injured night watchman, was assaulted when he intervened in a village scuffle. The trial court had proceeded on charges that included Section 307 IPC, and the High Court maintained the conviction.

At the outset, the Court restated the settled limits on interference with concurrent findings of fact in criminal appeals. Referring to Dalbir Kaur v. State of Punjab, the Court reiterated that it would not normally reappraise evidence or disturb concurrent findings unless there was an error of law, misreading of evidence, perversity, or a conclusion unsupported by evidence.

Applying those principles, the Court examined the medical and ocular material. The injured had suffered a head injury, was treated at multiple hospitals, and the medical evidence showed a grievous injury. However, on the Court’s assessment, the record did not justify sustaining the conviction under Section 307 IPC. The appropriate conviction was under Section 325 IPC read with Section 34 IPC.

The Court therefore altered the conviction from Section 307 read with Section 34 IPC to Section 325 read with Section 34 IPC. It then turned to sentence. Section 325 IPC permits imprisonment up to seven years and fine, but the Court considered the period already undergone by each appellant, namely 2 years 7 months, 2 years 8 months, and 1 year 1 month respectively. The Court also noted that the appellants had already been enlarged on bail during the proceedings.

In the circumstances, the Court held that the interest of justice would be served by sentencing the appellants to the period already undergone and imposing a fine of Rs. 50,000 each, payable to the injured-informant. In default of payment, each appellant would undergo six months’ simple imprisonment.

The appeals were partly allowed on that basis.

Practical takeaway: Even where concurrent findings exist, the Supreme Court may intervene if the evidence supports grievous hurt but not an attempt-to-murder conviction.