“18. The evidence establishes that the injuries were caused by a
firearm. The multiplicity of wounds indicates that the respondent
fired at the injured more than once. The fact that hurt has been
caused by the respondent is sufficiently proven. The lack of forensic
evidence to prove grievous or a life-threatening injury cannot be a
basis to hold that Section 307 is inapplicable. This proposition of law
has been elucidated by a two-Judge Bench of this Court
in Pasupuleti Siva Ramakrishna Rao v. State of A.P. [Pasupuleti Siva
Ramakrishna Rao v. State of A.P., (2014) 5 SCC 369 : (2014) 2 SCC
(Cri) 584] : (SCC p. 376, para 18)
“18. There is no merit in the contention that the statement of medical
officer that there is no danger to life unless there is dislocation or
rupture of the thyroid bone due to strangulation means that the
accused did not intend, or have the knowledge, that their act would
cause death. The circumstances of this case clearly attract the
second part of this section since the act resulted in Injury 5 which is
a ligature mark of 34 cm × 0.5 cm It must be noted that Section 307
IPC provides for imprisonment for life if the act causes “hurt”. It does
not require that the hurt should be grievous or of any particular
degree. The intention to cause death is clearly attributable to the
accused since the victim was strangulated after throwing a
telephone wire around his neck and telling him that he should die.
We also do not find any merit in the contention on behalf of the
accused that there was no intention to cause death because the
victim admitted that the accused were not armed with weapons.
Very few persons would normally describe the Thumbs up bottle and
a telephone wire used, as weapons. That the victim honestly
admitted that the accused did not have any weapons cannot be held
against him and in favour of the accused.”