Date of the Judgment: 11th April, 2023
Citation: 2023 INSC 351
Judges: Abhay S. Oka, J. and Rajesh Bindal, J.
Can a conviction for attempt to murder be sustained if the injuries inflicted were not sufficient to cause death and the weapon used was not inherently lethal? The Supreme Court recently addressed this question in a case where the accused was initially convicted for attempt to murder under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). The Court re-evaluated the evidence and reduced the conviction to causing grievous hurt under Section 326 of the IPC, while also reducing the sentence to the period already served. This judgment highlights the importance of considering the nature of the weapon and the intention behind the act when determining the appropriate charge.

Case Background

The case revolves around an incident that occurred on May 4, 1999, at approximately 7:15 PM. The complainant, Salikram, was returning from a pond after bathing when he was confronted by the appellant, Panchram, near Prasanna Kumar’s barn. According to the First Information Report (FIR), Panchram verbally abused and threatened Salikram, accusing him of having illicit relations with his wife. The appellant then proceeded to injure Salikram with scissors, causing wounds on his abdomen and thigh. The prosecution argued that this constituted an attempt to murder.

Timeline

Date Event
May 4, 1999 Incident occurred at approximately 7:15 PM where Salikram was injured by Panchram.
May 30, 2000 Trial Court passed judgment convicting Panchram.
October 11, 2018 High Court upheld the Trial Court’s judgment.
April 30, 2019 Compromise deed was presented between the parties.
April 11, 2023 Supreme Court modified the judgments of the lower courts.

Course of Proceedings

The Trial Court convicted Panchram for offences under Sections 341 (wrongful restraint), 506B (criminal intimidation), and 307 (attempt to murder) of the IPC. The High Court of Chhattisgarh upheld this decision. Panchram then appealed to the Supreme Court, challenging his conviction and sentence.

Legal Framework

The Supreme Court considered the following provisions of the Indian Penal Code, 1860:

  • Section 307, IPC: “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.” This section deals with the attempt to commit murder.
  • Section 326, IPC: “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.” This section deals with voluntarily causing grievous hurt by dangerous weapons or means.
  • Section 341, IPC: Deals with punishment for wrongful restraint.
  • Section 506B, IPC: Deals with punishment for criminal intimidation.
See also  Fair Trial and Sentencing: Supreme Court Addresses Procedural Lapses in Criminal Cases: Sunita Devi vs. State of Bihar (2024) INSC 448

Arguments

Appellant’s Arguments:

  • The incident was a result of a sudden fight, not a pre-planned attack.
  • There was no intention to cause death.
  • The injuries were not serious enough to cause death.
  • The weapon used, scissors, is not a typical weapon of offense. The appellant, who was a tailor, often carried scissors as part of his work.
  • The complainant admitted to having an inappropriate relationship with the appellant’s wife, which led to the fight.
  • A compromise deed dated April 30, 2019, between the parties was presented, indicating a resolution.

State’s Arguments:

  • The appellant caused injuries with a sharp-edged weapon on a vital part of the body.
  • The conviction under Section 307 of the IPC was justified.
Main Submission Sub-Submissions
Appellant’s Submission: Lack of Intent to Murder
  • Sudden fight, not pre-planned.
  • Injuries not serious enough to cause death.
  • Scissors not a lethal weapon.
  • Complainant’s admission of inappropriate relationship.
State’s Submission: Justification of Section 307 Conviction
  • Injuries caused by sharp-edged weapon on a vital part.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame issues in a separate section. However, the core issue can be summarized as:

  1. Whether the conviction under Section 307 of the IPC (attempt to murder) was justified based on the facts and evidence presented.

Additionally, the court also considered whether the offense would fall under section 326 of IPC.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Issue Court’s Decision Reason
Whether the conviction under Section 307 of the IPC was justified Conviction under Section 307 IPC not sustained. The weapon used was not inherently lethal, the injuries were not sufficient to cause death and the incident was not pre-planned.
Whether the offence would fall under section 326 of IPC Conviction under Section 326 IPC sustained. A sharp-edged weapon was used, causing grievous hurt.

Authorities

The judgment does not cite any case laws or books. It only refers to the relevant sections of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

Authority Type How it was used
Section 307, IPC Legal Provision The court examined whether the facts of the case met the criteria for an attempt to murder.
Section 326, IPC Legal Provision The court determined that the facts of the case met the criteria for causing grievous hurt by a dangerous weapon.
Section 341, IPC Legal Provision The court sustained the conviction for wrongful restraint.
Section 506B, IPC Legal Provision The court sustained the conviction for criminal intimidation.

Judgment

Submission Court’s Treatment
Appellant’s argument that the incident was a sudden fight with no intention to cause death. The Court agreed that the incident was not pre-planned and the intention to cause death was not established.
Appellant’s argument that the injuries were not serious enough to cause death. The Court concurred that the injuries were not sufficient to cause death.
Appellant’s argument that the weapon used was not a typical weapon of offence. The Court noted that the scissors was a small one used by tailors and not a lethal weapon.
State’s argument that the appellant caused injuries on a vital part of the body. The Court acknowledged the injuries but determined that they did not justify a conviction for attempt to murder.
See also  Supreme Court Denies Compassionate Appointment After 18-Year Delay: Steel Authority of India vs. Gouri Devi (2021)

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

  • The Court determined that the facts of the case did not meet the requirements of Section 307, IPC, as there was no intention to cause death and the injuries were not sufficient to cause death.
  • The Court found that the facts of the case met the requirements of Section 326, IPC, as a sharp-edged weapon was used to cause grievous hurt.
  • The Court sustained the conviction for Section 341, IPC and Section 506B, IPC.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the following factors:

  • The nature of the weapon used (scissors) and its lack of inherent lethality.
  • The injuries sustained by the complainant were not of a nature that could cause death.
  • The incident appeared to be a result of a sudden fight rather than a pre-planned attack.
  • The complainant’s admission of having an inappropriate relationship with the appellant’s wife, which was the root cause of the fight.
Sentiment Percentage
Nature of Weapon 30%
Severity of Injuries 30%
Sudden Fight 20%
Complainant’s Admission 20%
Ratio Percentage
Fact 70%
Law 30%

The Court emphasized the factual aspects of the case, such as the nature of the weapon, the severity of the injuries, and the circumstances of the fight, which weighed more heavily in its decision than the legal interpretations alone.

Issue: Was the conviction under Section 307 IPC justified?
↓
Court considers: Nature of Weapon (Scissors)
↓
Court considers: Severity of Injuries (Not fatal)
↓
Court considers: Circumstances (Sudden fight)
↓
Court concludes: No intention to cause death
↓
Decision: Conviction under Section 307 IPC not sustained
↓
Decision: Offence falls under Section 326 IPC

The Court reasoned that while the appellant did cause grievous hurt using a sharp-edged weapon, the circumstances did not indicate an intention to cause death, which is a necessary element for a conviction under Section 307 of the IPC. The court emphasized that, “The injuries were not caused with an intention to cause death and were not sufficient to cause death.” The court also considered that “The weapon used is a scissors which is not a normal weapon of offence in case there is any intention to cause death.” The court further added that, “From the reasons for fight as are emerging on record, it doesn’t seem to be pre-planned act.”

The court did not discuss any alternative interpretations or minority opinions in the judgment.

Key Takeaways

  • A conviction for attempt to murder (Section 307, IPC) requires proof of intention to cause death and the act should be such that it could cause death.
  • The nature of the weapon used and the severity of the injuries are important factors in determining the appropriate charge.
  • In cases of sudden fights, where there is no pre-meditation or intention to cause death, the conviction may be reduced to causing grievous hurt (Section 326, IPC).
  • The court may consider the background of the incident and the relationship between the parties when determining the appropriate charge.

Directions

The Supreme Court modified the judgments of the lower courts, reducing the conviction under Section 307 IPC to Section 326 IPC. The sentence was reduced to the period already undergone (11 months and 24 days). The fine imposed was sustained, with an additional one-month imprisonment in case of non-payment.

See also  Supreme Court Revises Conviction in Fatal Free Fight Case: State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Kalicharan & Ors. (2019)

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that for a conviction under Section 307 of the IPC, the intention to cause death and the capability of the act to cause death must be proven. This judgment clarifies the distinction between attempt to murder and causing grievous hurt with a dangerous weapon, emphasizing that the nature of the weapon, the severity of the injuries, and the circumstances of the incident are crucial in determining the appropriate charge. The court has not changed the position of law but has clarified the application of law on the given facts.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s decision in Panchram vs. State of Chhattisgarh provides a crucial clarification on the application of Section 307 of the IPC. By reducing the conviction from attempt to murder to causing grievous hurt, the Court highlighted the importance of considering the specific facts and circumstances of each case, especially the nature of the weapon and the intention behind the act. This judgment underscores that not every act causing injury can be classified as an attempt to murder, and a careful evaluation of the evidence is necessary to determine the appropriate charge.

Source: Panchram vs. State of Chhattisgarh