Conviction in Attempt to Murder Case: Supreme Court Upholds Five-Year Sentence

The case of Rohtas & Anr. vs. State of Haryana and Bijender vs. State of Haryana centered around a brutal attack on a farmer, resulting in life-altering injuries. The Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether the conviction under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) should be upheld despite the acquittal of three co-accused, and whether the sentence could be reduced on equitable grounds.

Initially, the trial court sentenced the accused to seven years of rigorous imprisonment, which was later reduced to five years by the Punjab and Haryana High Court. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, affirming the conviction under Section 307 IPC, while setting aside the conviction under Section 148 IPC.

Background of the Case

• The complainant, Ranbir Singh, was stopped and threatened by the accused on 24.01.1998 while on his way to his agricultural field.
• The next day, 25.01.1998, he was ambushed and attacked with axes by the accused—Rohtas, Sanjay, Bijender, and Om Prakash (deceased).
• The complainant suffered multiple severe injuries on his legs, hands, and head and was left permanently disabled.
• His brother, Balwan Singh, witnessed the attack and intervened, causing the accused to flee.
• The police recorded the complainant’s statement at PGIMS, Rohtak, and registered an FIR under Sections 307, 323, 325, 506, 148, and 149 IPC.

Prosecution’s Evidence

The prosecution presented twelve witnesses, including:

• Ranbir Singh (PW-1) – The victim who testified about the attack in detail.
• Balwan Singh (PW-3) – The only eyewitness who corroborated the events.
• Dr. Suman Mathur (PW-4) – The medical officer who listed the complainant’s injuries.
• Dr. Ajay Goel (PW-10) – The orthopedic surgeon who treated the complainant.
• Dr. S.S. Lochab (PW-12) – The vascular surgeon who confirmed that blood loss led to the amputation of the complainant’s right leg.
• S.I. Parkash Chand (PW-6) – The investigating officer.

Defense’s Arguments

The accused pleaded innocence, claiming that:

• They were falsely implicated due to village politics.
• No independent witnesses were examined.
• The number of accused fell below five after the acquittal of three co-accused, making the conviction under Section 149 IPC unsustainable.
• Since they had been on bail for a long time, they should not be sent back to jail.

Supreme Court’s Key Observations

The Supreme Court, in its ruling delivered by Justices N.V. Ramana, Surya Kant, and Aniruddha Bose, addressed the following issues:

1. Applicability of Section 149 IPC

The Court noted that an unlawful assembly requires at least five persons. Since three co-accused were acquitted, the conviction under Section 149 IPC (common object) was set aside.

2. Conviction Under Section 307 IPC (Attempt to Murder)

Despite the Section 149 IPC charge failing, the Court held that each of the three appellants was individually guilty under Section 307 IPC, as:

• They had a common intention to kill the complainant.
• They used sharp-edged weapons (axes) to cause grievous and life-threatening injuries.
• The medical evidence confirmed that the injuries could have caused death in the ordinary course of nature.

3. Reliability of Witnesses

The Court ruled that the testimonies of Ranbir Singh (PW-1) and Balwan Singh (PW-3) were credible, even though they were related to each other. The injuries and medical reports supported their statements.

4. Plea for Leniency

The Court rejected the plea to reduce the sentence, stating:

“The appellants have not undergone even half of their sentence period. Having enjoyed the more productive part of their lives outside jail cannot be, per se, taken as a mitigating factor.”

Final Judgment

• The conviction under Section 307 IPC was upheld.
• The conviction under Section 148 IPC (rioting with deadly weapons) was set aside.
• The five-year sentence remained unchanged.
• The appellants’ bail bonds were canceled, and they were directed to surrender.

Implications of the Judgment

This ruling has significant implications:

• Courts can alter charges if Section 149 IPC fails but sufficient evidence exists to convict individuals under Section 307 IPC.
• Testimonies of related witnesses can be relied upon if corroborated by medical and forensic evidence.
• Severe bodily harm leading to permanent disability justifies stringent punishment.
• Extended periods of bail do not automatically entitle convicts to reduced sentences.

This case reaffirms that courts will not tolerate brutal attacks and will ensure that serious offenders serve their full sentences.

Petitioner Name: Rohtas & Anr., Bijender.
Respondent Name: State of Haryana.
Judgment By: Justice N.V. Ramana, Justice Surya Kant, Justice Aniruddha Bose.
Place Of Incident: Sonipat, Haryana.
Judgment Date: 10-12-2020.

Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!

Download Judgment: Rohtas & Anr., Bijen vs State of Haryana Supreme Court of India Judgment Dated 10-12-2020.pdf

Direct Downlaod Judgment: Direct downlaod this Judgment

See all petitions in Attempt to Murder Cases
See all petitions in Bail and Anticipatory Bail
See all petitions in Judgment by N.V. Ramana
See all petitions in Judgment by Surya Kant
See all petitions in Judgment by Aniruddha Bose
See all petitions in dismissed
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments December 2020
See all petitions in 2020 judgments

See all posts in Criminal Cases Category
See all allowed petitions in Criminal Cases Category
See all Dismissed petitions in Criminal Cases Category
See all partially allowed petitions in Criminal Cases Category