Supreme Court clarifies the essential ingredients for attempt to murder under Section 307 IPC and misuse of licensed arms: Surinder Singh vs. State (26 November 2021)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: 26 November 2021

Citation: Where available, provide the case citation in the Indian Supreme Court (INSC) format.

Judges: N.V. Ramana, CJI, Surya Kant, J., A.S. Bopanna, J.

Can a person be convicted for attempt to murder even if no injury is caused? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question while also examining the misuse of a licensed firearm. The case involved a police officer who fired his service pistol at a lawyer, leading to charges under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Section 27 of the Arms Act. The Supreme Court clarified the essential ingredients for both offenses, providing valuable insights into the application of these laws. The judgment was delivered by a three-judge bench comprising Chief Justice N.V. Ramana, Justice Surya Kant, and Justice A.S. Bopanna, with Justice Surya Kant authoring the opinion.

Case Background

On 10th July 1999, Mansur Ali, an advocate, was working in his residential office with his clerk, Maler Singh (PW-3), and stenographer, R.K. Sood (PW-4). At approximately 5:30 PM, Surinder Singh, a Head Constable with the Chandigarh Police, entered the office inebriated. He asked for water, and after being served by Balbir Singh (PW-5), he pulled out his service pistol. He threatened Mansur Ali, stating he would kill ten people and ordered him to raise his hands. Surinder Singh then moved around the table, pulled the lever of his pistol to make it ready to fire. Mansur Ali, sensing danger, lunged at Surinder Singh and pushed his hand towards the ceiling, causing the gun to fire into the ceiling. Surinder Singh tried to fire again, but a bullet fell from his pistol. Hearing the commotion, the women of the house entered, causing Surinder Singh to flee, leaving his wireless set and scooter behind. The police were informed, and Surinder Singh was arrested with the pistol still in his possession. He refused to give his urine or blood samples for medical examination.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The case was committed to the Additional Sessions Judge, Chandigarh, where charges were framed against Surinder Singh under Section 307 of the IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act. The Trial Court examined 14 prosecution witnesses and 3 defense witnesses. The prosecution relied on the testimonies of the eyewitnesses, including the complainant, Mansur Ali (PW-2), who maintained his version of events as stated in the FIR. The Trial Court found the defense’s version of events, claiming the complainant accidentally fired the gun, to be dubious. The Trial Court convicted Surinder Singh under Section 307 IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act, sentencing him to three years of rigorous imprisonment for both offenses, to run concurrently. The High Court of Punjab & Haryana upheld the conviction and sentence, dismissing Surinder Singh’s appeal.

Legal Framework

The key legal provisions in this case are:

• Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC): This section deals with the offense of attempt to murder. It states that, “Whoever does any act with such intention or knowledge, and under such circumstances that, if he by that act caused death, he would be guilty of murder, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine; and, if hurt is caused to any person by such act, the offender shall be liable either to imprisonment for life, or to such punishment as is hereinbefore mentioned.” It is not essential that a bodily injury capable of causing death should have been inflicted. The court has to see whether the act, irrespective of its result, was done with the intention or knowledge and under circumstances mentioned in the section.
• Section 5 of the Arms Act, 1959: This section pertains to licenses for the manufacture, sale, etc., of arms and ammunition. It states, “No person shall use, manufacture, sell, transfer, convert, repair, test or prove, or expose or offer for sale or transfer or have in his possession for sale, transfer, conversion, repair, test or proof, any firearm or any other arms of such class or description as may be prescribed or any ammunition, unless he holds in this behalf a licence issued in accordance with the provisions of this Act and the rules made thereunder.”
• Section 27 of the Arms Act, 1959: This section prescribes the punishment for using arms in contravention of Section 5. It states, “Whoever uses any arms or ammunition in contravention of section 5 shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than three years but which may extend to seven years and shall also be liable to fine.”

Arguments

Appellant’s Arguments:

• Absence of Motive: The appellant argued that there was no motive to kill the complainant, as they had either good relations or were strangers.
• Absence of Intent: The appellant contended that his conduct did not demonstrate an intent to kill.
• Contradictions in Evidence: The appellant claimed that the statements of the eyewitnesses had material contradictions and that PW-3 to PW-5 were interested witnesses being employees of the complainant. He also asserted that his version of events under Section 313 of the CrPC was more probable.
• Misuse of Licensed Weapon: The appellant argued that the conviction under Section 27 of the Arms Act was not sustainable because the weapon was licensed and that misuse of a licensed weapon does not constitute an offense under Section 5 of the Arms Act.

Respondent’s Arguments:

• Concurrent Findings of Fact: The State Counsel argued that the Supreme Court should not interfere with the concurrent findings of fact by the lower courts.
• No Substantial Question of Law: The State Counsel contended that no substantial question of law was involved in the appeal.

Innovativeness of the argument: The Appellant’s argument that misuse of a licensed weapon does not constitute an offense under Section 5 of the Arms Act, was a novel point that led to the Supreme Court setting aside the conviction under Section 27 of the Arms Act.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court framed the following issues for consideration:

1. Whether the High Court erred in maintaining the conviction of the Appellant under Section 307 IPC?
2. Whether the conviction of the Appellant under Section 27 of the Arms Act is sustainable?

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

Judgment

How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• The Supreme Court relied on State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Saleem @ Chamaru & Anr. [2005] 5 SCC 554* to reiterate the essential ingredients for a conviction under Section 307 IPC, stating that it is not essential to cause bodily injury capable of causing death.
• The Supreme Court cited State of M.P. vs. Kashiram & Ors. [2009] 4 SCC 263*, Jage Ram & Ors. vs. State of Haryana [2015] 11 SCC 366* and State of M.P. vs. Kanha @ Om Prakash [2019] 3 SCC 605* to reinforce the essential ingredients for an offense under Section 307 IPC.
• The Supreme Court referred to Shivaji Genu Mohite v. State of Maharashtra [1973] 3 SCC 219* and Bipin Kumar Mondal vs. State of West Bengal [2010] 12 SCC 91* to emphasize that while motive is a crucial factor, its absence does not render the evidence of an eyewitness untrustworthy.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was influenced by a combination of factual evidence and legal principles. The Court emphasized the importance of the appellant’s conduct, the nature of the weapon used, and the testimonies of the eyewitnesses in determining the intent to commit murder. The Court also took into account the fact that the appellant was in an inebriated state and that he had manually made the semi-automatic pistol ready to fire. However, the court also considered the fact that the appellant was in authorized possession of the weapon, thus, his actions did not violate Section 5 of the Arms Act. The Court also considered the mitigating factors for sentencing, such as the absence of motive, the lack of injury, the appellant’s clean record, and the fact that he had already been dismissed from service.

Logical Reasoning:

The Court considered the argument that the appellant’s version of events was more probable, but rejected it as incredulous. The Court also considered the argument that the eyewitnesses were interested witnesses, but found that their testimonies corroborated each other and the prosecution’s version of events. The Court also considered the lack of motive, but held that the absence of motive does not render the evidence of an eyewitness untrustworthy.

The Court’s reasoning was based on the principle that for an offense under Section 307 IPC, it is not necessary that the victim should have suffered a dangerous injury. The Court also reasoned that the Arms Act was enacted to provide a licensing/regulatory regime, and that illegal use of a licensed weapon per se does not constitute an offense under Section 27 without proving a misdemeanor under Section 5 or 7 of the Arms Act.

The Court also considered the mitigating factors for sentencing, such as the absence of motive, the lack of injury, the appellant’s clean record, and the fact that he had already been dismissed from service. The Court held that these factors warranted a reduction in the sentence.

“It is sufficient to justify a conviction under Section 307 if there is present an intent coupled with some overt act in execution thereof.”

“The section makes a distinction between the act of the accused and its result, if any. The court has to see whether the act, irrespective of its result, was done with the intention or knowledge and under circumstances mentioned in the section.”

“Illegal use of a licensed or sanctioned weapon per se does not constitute an offence under Section 27, without proving the misdemeanour under Section 5 or 7 of the Arms Act.”

Key Takeaways

• Attempt to Murder: A person can be convicted for attempt to murder under Section 307 IPC even if no injury is caused, provided there is an intention or knowledge to cause death, coupled with an overt act.
• Misuse of Licensed Arms: The misuse of a licensed weapon does not automatically constitute an offense under Section 27 of the Arms Act. The prosecution must prove a violation of Section 5 or 7 of the Arms Act.
• Motive is not essential: The absence of motive is not fatal to the prosecution’s case if there is credible eyewitness testimony and other evidence.
• Sentencing: Courts should consider mitigating factors such as the absence of motive, lack of injury, clean record, and the passage of time when determining the quantum of sentence.

Directions

The Supreme Court did not give any specific directions, apart from setting aside the conviction and sentence under Section 27 of the Arms Act and reducing the sentence under Section 307 IPC to the period already undergone.

Specific Amendments Analysis

The judgment discusses the amendment to Section 27 of the Arms Act, which removed the phrase ‘unlawful purpose’ and confined the provision to contravention of Section 5 or 7 of the Arms Act. The court clarified that prior to the amendment, Section 27 penalized the use of arms for any unlawful purpose but post the amendment, it is confined to violation of Section 5 or 7 of the Arms Act.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that for a conviction under Section 307 IPC, it is not essential that bodily injury capable of causing death should have been inflicted. The court has to see whether the act was done with the intention or knowledge to cause death. Also, the illegal use of a licensed weapon does not automatically constitute an offense under Section 27 of the Arms Act. This judgment clarifies the scope and application of Section 307 IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act. It also emphasizes the importance of considering all relevant factors, including mitigating circumstances, when determining the sentence.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court partly allowed the appeal, upholding the conviction under Section 307 of the IPC but setting aside the conviction under Section 27 of the Arms Act. The Court clarified that while an attempt to murder does not require an injury, the misuse of a licensed weapon does not automatically constitute an offense under Section 27 of the Arms Act. The sentence under Section 307 IPC was reduced to the period already undergone, considering the mitigating factors. This judgment provides a clear understanding of the legal requirements for attempt to murder and the misuse of licensed arms.

Category

Parent Category: Criminal Law

Child Categories:

• Attempt to Murder
• Section 307, Indian Penal Code, 1860
• Arms Act, 1959
• Section 27, Arms Act, 1959
• Misuse of Licensed Arms

FAQ

Q: Can I be convicted for attempt to murder if I didn’t actually hurt anyone?
A: Yes, according to this Supreme Court judgment, you can be convicted for attempt to murder under Section 307 of the IPC if you had the intention or knowledge to cause death, and you took an action towards that end, even if no one was actually hurt.

Q: If I have a license for my gun, can I use it however I want?
A: No. This judgment clarifies that simply having a license for a gun doesn’t mean you can use it for any purpose. If you misuse a licensed weapon, you may not be automatically charged under the Arms Act, but you may still face other legal consequences.

Q: What does the court consider when deciding the sentence for a crime?
A: The court considers the severity of the crime, and also mitigating factors like whether there was a motive, whether anyone was hurt, and whether the person has a clean record. The court also considers the passage of time and any social sanctions already imposed.

Q: What is the importance of ‘motive’ in a criminal case?
A: While motive is a crucial factor, its absence is not fatal to the prosecution’s case if there is credible eyewitness testimony and other evidence. The court will consider all factors to determine the guilt of the accused.