Supreme Court Reduces Attempt to Murder Conviction to Simple Hurt: Shyam Sharma vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (2017)

Date of the Judgment: October 4, 2017
Citation: (2017) INSC 873
Judges: Justice R.K. Agrawal and Justice S. Abdul Nazeer
Can a conviction for attempt to murder be reduced to simple hurt if the injury is not on a vital part of the body and there was no pre-meditation? The Supreme Court of India addressed this question in the case of Shyam Sharma vs. State of Madhya Pradesh. The Court, while hearing an appeal against a conviction for attempt to murder, found that the prosecution failed to prove the intention to cause death and reduced the conviction to simple hurt. The judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench comprising Justice R.K. Agrawal and Justice S. Abdul Nazeer, with Justice S. Abdul Nazeer authoring the opinion.

Case Background

The case involves an incident where the appellant, Shyam Sharma, was accused of attempting to murder Manjeet Singh by shooting him. The Sessions Judge, Gwalior, had convicted Shyam Sharma under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), sentencing him to three years of rigorous imprisonment and a fine. The High Court of Judicature at Madhya Pradesh, Jabalpur Bench at Gwalior, affirmed this decision. Shyam Sharma then appealed to the Supreme Court.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The Sessions Judge, Gwalior, convicted Shyam Sharma under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and sentenced him to three years of rigorous imprisonment along with a fine of Rs. 1,000. The High Court of Judicature at Madhya Pradesh, Jabalpur Bench at Gwalior, upheld this conviction. Aggrieved by the High Court’s decision, Shyam Sharma appealed to the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The case primarily revolves around the interpretation and application of the following sections of the Indian Penal Code, 1860:

• Section 307, IPC: This section deals with the offense of attempt to murder. It states, “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.”
• Section 324, IPC: This section deals with voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons or means. It states, “Whoever, except in the case provided for by section 334, voluntarily causes hurt by means of any instrument for shooting, stabbing or cutting, or any instrument which, used as a weapon of offence, is likely to cause death, or by means of fire or any heated substance, or by means of any poison or any corrosive substance, or by means of any explosive substance, or by means of any substance which it is deleterious to the human body to inhale, to swallow, or to receive into the blood, or by means of any animal, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.”

Arguments

Appellant’s Arguments:

• The appellant’s counsel, Mr. V. Giri, argued that the independent witnesses, Anoop Bhargava (PW-1) and Ramprakash (PW-4), did not support the prosecution’s case.
• It was contended that Manjeet Singh (PW-3), the injured party, was an interested witness and therefore his testimony should be viewed with caution.
• The appellant is a computer engineer with no prior criminal record, suggesting he is not a habitual offender.
• The appellant’s counsel argued that, at most, the appellant could be convicted under Section 324 of the IPC for causing hurt, not under Section 307 for attempt to murder.

Respondent’s Arguments:

• The counsel for the respondents supported the judgment of the High Court, arguing that the conviction under Section 307 of the IPC was justified.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame issues in the judgment. However, the core issue before the court was:

1. Whether the conviction of the appellant under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) was justified, or whether the conviction should be reduced to Section 324 of the IPC.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues:

Authorities

The Supreme Court did not cite any specific cases or books in this judgment. The judgment primarily relies on the interpretation of Sections 307 and 324 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

Judgment

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

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• Section 307, Indian Penal Code, 1860: The Court examined this provision and found that the prosecution failed to prove the intention to cause death, a necessary element for a conviction under this section.
• Section 324, Indian Penal Code, 1860: The Court found that the act of the accused fell under the purview of this provision, as the accused voluntarily caused hurt by means of a dangerous weapon.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the lack of evidence supporting the intention to cause death, which is a critical element for a conviction under Section 307 of the IPC. The Court noted that the injury sustained by Manjeet Singh was not on a vital part of his body and that the act was not premeditated. These factors led the Court to conclude that the offense was more appropriately categorized as simple hurt under Section 324 of the IPC rather than attempt to murder under Section 307.

Logical Reasoning:

The Supreme Court held that the prosecution failed to prove that the accused intended to cause the death of the victim. The court noted that “It is also evident that the accused fired at Manjeet Singh without any pre-meditation.” Additionally, the court observed that “The injury suffered by Manjeet Singh was not on the vital part of his body.” Therefore, the court concluded that “the appellant can only be convicted under Section 324 of the IPC and not under Section 307 of the IPC.” The court reduced the sentence to the period already undergone by the appellant, considering that he had already been imprisoned for about four months.

Key Takeaways

• A conviction for attempt to murder (Section 307 IPC) requires proof of intention to cause death.
• If the injury is not on a vital part of the body and there is no pre-meditation, the conviction may be reduced to simple hurt (Section 324 IPC).
• The court considers the factual matrix of the case while deciding the nature of the offence.

Directions

The Supreme Court reduced the sentence to the period already undergone by the appellant, which was about four months.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that for a conviction under Section 307 of the IPC, the prosecution must prove the intention to cause death. The court clarified that if the injury is not on a vital part of the body and there is no pre-meditation, the conviction may be reduced to Section 324 of the IPC. This judgment reinforces the importance of establishing the specific intention behind the act to determine the appropriate penal provision.

Conclusion

In the case of Shyam Sharma vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, the Supreme Court modified the High Court’s judgment, reducing the appellant’s conviction from attempt to murder under Section 307 of the IPC to simple hurt under Section 324 of the IPC. This decision was based on the court’s finding that the prosecution failed to prove the intention to cause death, a necessary ingredient for a conviction under Section 307 of the IPC. The court also considered that the injury was not on a vital part of the body and that there was no pre-meditation. The sentence was reduced to the period already undergone by the appellant.

Category

• Indian Penal Code, 1860
  • Section 307, Indian Penal Code, 1860
  • Section 324, Indian Penal Code, 1860
  • Criminal Law
  • Attempt to Murder
  • Simple Hurt
  • Criminal Procedure

FAQ

Q: What is the difference between Section 307 and Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code?
A: Section 307 deals with attempt to murder, which requires the intention to cause death, while Section 324 deals with voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons or means. The key difference lies in the intention and the nature of the injury.

Q: What factors did the Supreme Court consider while reducing the conviction?
A: The Supreme Court considered that the injury was not on a vital part of the body, there was no pre-meditation, and the prosecution failed to prove the intention to cause death.

Q: What does it mean when a witness turns hostile?
A: When a witness turns hostile, it means that the witness does not support the party that called them to testify. In this case, the independent witnesses did not support the prosecution’s version of events.