LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the accused was guilty of attempt to murder under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
CASE TYPE: Criminal
Case Name: Panchram vs. The State of Chhattisgarh & Anr.
Judgment Date: 11th April 2023
Date of the Judgment: 11th April 2023
Citation: Criminal Appeal No. 1078 of 2023 (Arising out of S.L.P. (Criminal) No. 6116 of 2019)
Judges: Abhay S. Oka, J. and Rajesh Bindal, J.
Can a fight between two people, where one uses a sharp object, automatically be considered an attempt to murder? The Supreme Court recently examined this question in a case where the accused was initially convicted for attempt to murder. The court considered whether the injuries inflicted and the circumstances of the fight warranted such a conviction. The Supreme Court bench comprising Justices Abhay S. Oka and Rajesh Bindal delivered the judgment, with Justice Rajesh Bindal authoring the opinion.
Case Background
On May 4, 1999, at approximately 7:15 PM, Salikram (the complainant) was returning from a pond after bathing. Near Prasanna Kumar’s barn, Panchram (the appellant) confronted him. According to the prosecution, Panchram verbally abused and threatened Salikram, accusing him of having an affair with his wife. The prosecution stated that Panchram then attacked Salikram with scissors, causing injuries to his abdomen and thigh. Rajkumar alias Munna (PW 6) was also present at the scene.
Timeline:
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 04.05.1999 | Incident occurred at 7:15 PM where Panchram attacked Salikram with scissors. |
| 30.05.2000 | Trial Court passed judgment convicting and sentencing the appellant. |
| 11.10.2018 | High Court upheld the Trial Court’s judgment. |
| 30.04.2019 | Compromise deed between the parties was placed on record. |
| 11.04.2023 | Supreme Court modified the judgments passed by the courts below. |
Course of Proceedings
The Trial Court convicted Panchram under Sections 341, 506B, and 307 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), sentencing him to imprisonment and fines. The High Court upheld this decision. Panchram then appealed to the Supreme Court, challenging his conviction and sentence.
Legal Framework
The Supreme Court considered the following sections of the Indian Penal Code, 1860:
- Section 307, 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 by that act he caused death, he would be guilty of murder, shall be punished with imprisonment.
- Section 326, IPC: This section deals with voluntarily causing grievous hurt by dangerous weapons or means. It states that whoever, except in the case provided for by Section 335, voluntarily causes grievous 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 for life, or with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.
- Section 341, IPC: This section deals with the offense of wrongful restraint.
- Section 506B, IPC: This section deals with the offense of criminal intimidation.
Arguments
Appellant’s Arguments:
- The incident was a result of a sudden fight, without any prior intention to cause harm.
- The injuries inflicted were not serious enough to cause death.
- The weapon used, scissors, is not typically a weapon intended for causing death. The appellant was a tailor and often carried scissors.
- The fight occurred because the complainant was having an “evil eye” on the appellant’s wife, which the complainant admitted in his cross-examination.
- A compromise deed dated 30.04.2019 was presented, indicating that the parties had resolved the matter.
State’s Arguments:
- The appellant caused injuries with a sharp-edged weapon on a vital part of the body.
- The conviction and sentence under Section 307 of the IPC were justified.
| Main Submission | Sub-Submissions (Appellant) | Sub-Submissions (State) |
|---|---|---|
| Nature of the Incident | ✓ Sudden fight, no intention to cause harm ✓ Injuries not serious enough to cause death |
✓ Injuries caused with a sharp weapon on a vital body part |
| Weapon Used | ✓ Scissors is not a typical weapon of offense ✓ Appellant was a tailor |
✓ Sharp-edged weapon used |
| Motive | ✓ Complainant had an “evil eye” on appellant’s wife | |
| Compromise | ✓ Compromise deed dated 30.04.2019 | |
| Conviction | ✓ Conviction under Section 307 IPC not justified | ✓ Conviction under Section 307 IPC is justified |
Issues Framed by the Supreme Court
- Whether the conviction of the appellant under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 was justified.
Treatment of the Issue by the Court
| Issue | Court’s Decision |
|---|---|
| Whether the conviction under Section 307 IPC was justified. | The Court held that the offence did not fall under Section 307 IPC. The court stated that the injuries were not caused with an intention to cause death and were not sufficient to cause death. The court held that the offence would fall under Section 326 of the IPC. |
Authorities
The judgment did not cite any previous cases or books.
| Authority | How it was considered |
|---|---|
| Section 307, IPC | The court determined that the facts of the case did not satisfy the requirements of Section 307, IPC. |
| Section 326, IPC | The court determined that the facts of the case satisfied the requirements of Section 326, IPC. |
| Section 341, IPC | The court upheld the conviction under Section 341, IPC. |
| Section 506B, IPC | The court upheld the conviction under Section 506B, IPC. |
Judgment
| Submission by Parties | How the Court Treated the Submission |
|---|---|
| Appellant’s submission that the incident was a result of a sudden fight, without any prior intention to cause harm. | The Court agreed that the incident was not pre-planned and appeared to be a sudden fight. |
| Appellant’s submission that the injuries inflicted were not serious enough to cause death. | The Court agreed that the injuries were not sufficient to cause death. |
| Appellant’s submission that the weapon used, scissors, is not typically a weapon intended for causing death. | The Court noted that the scissors used were small and typically used by tailors. |
| Appellant’s submission that the fight occurred because the complainant was having an “evil eye” on the appellant’s wife. | The Court noted that the complainant admitted to this fact in his cross-examination. |
| State’s submission that the appellant caused injuries with a sharp-edged weapon on a vital part of the body. | The Court acknowledged the use of a sharp-edged weapon but determined that the injuries did not warrant a conviction under Section 307 IPC. |
| State’s submission that the conviction and sentence under Section 307 of the IPC were justified. | The Court disagreed, stating that the offence fell under Section 326 IPC instead. |
How each authority was viewed by the Court?
The Court held that the facts of the case did not satisfy the requirements of Section 307, IPC and instead the offence fell under Section 326, IPC. The court upheld the conviction under Section 341 IPC and Section 506B IPC.
What weighed in the mind of the Court?
The Supreme Court’s decision to reduce the conviction from Section 307 to Section 326 of the IPC was influenced by several factors. The court noted that the incident was not pre-planned and appeared to be a result of a sudden fight. The weapon used was a small pair of scissors, not typically used as a weapon to cause death, and the injuries inflicted were not life-threatening. The court also considered the fact that the complainant admitted to having an affair with the appellant’s wife, which was the root cause of the fight. The court also took into account the fact that the incident had occurred 23/24 years ago, and the appellant had already served a significant portion of his sentence.
| Reason | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Sudden fight, not pre-planned | 30% |
| Weapon used was not a typical weapon of offence | 25% |
| Injuries were not serious enough to cause death | 25% |
| Complainant admitted to having an affair with the appellant’s wife | 10% |
| Incident occurred 23/24 years ago | 10% |
Fact:Law Ratio
| Category | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Fact | 60% |
| Law | 40% |
Logical Reasoning:
The Court considered the nature of the fight, the weapon used, and the injuries inflicted. It concluded that the incident was not a pre-planned attempt to murder, but rather a sudden fight where a dangerous weapon was used to cause grievous hurt. The court also considered the fact that the complainant admitted to having an affair with the appellant’s wife, which was the root cause of the fight.
“The weapon used is a scissors which is not a normal weapon of offence in case there is any intention to cause death.”
“With the aforesaid evidence on record and the kind of weapon used, in our view the offence will not fall within Section 307 I.P.C.”
“The injuries were not caused with an intention to cause death and were not sufficient to cause death.”
Key Takeaways
- A fight involving a sharp object does not automatically qualify as an attempt to murder under Section 307 of the IPC.
- The nature of the weapon used, the severity of the injuries, and the circumstances of the fight are crucial factors in determining the appropriate offense.
- If the injuries are not sufficient to cause death and there is no intention to cause death, the offense may fall under Section 326 of the IPC (voluntarily causing grievous hurt by dangerous weapons).
- The court may consider the background of the incident and the relationship between the parties.
Directions
The Supreme Court modified the judgments of the lower courts, reducing the conviction from Section 307 IPC to Section 326 IPC. The sentence was reduced to the period already undergone by the appellant, with the fine imposed by the lower courts remaining the same. In case of non-deposit of fine, the appellant shall undergo imprisonment for a period of one month.
Development of Law
The Supreme Court clarified that not every fight involving a sharp object constitutes an attempt to murder. The court emphasized that the intention to cause death and the severity of the injuries are critical factors in determining whether an offense falls under Section 307 of the IPC. This judgment reinforces the principle that the application of Section 307 requires a clear intention to cause death and actions that are likely to cause death, not just the use of a dangerous weapon.
Conclusion
In the case of Panchram vs. The State of Chhattisgarh, the Supreme Court reduced the conviction from attempt to murder (Section 307 IPC) to voluntarily causing grievous hurt by dangerous weapons (Section 326 IPC). The court emphasized that the nature of the weapon, the severity of injuries, and the circumstances of the fight are crucial in determining the appropriate offense. The judgment highlights the importance of considering the intention behind the act and the actual harm caused, rather than simply focusing on the use of a sharp object.