LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the conviction under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (attempt to murder) was justified and whether the sentence imposed was appropriate.
CASE TYPE: Criminal
Case Name: Rakesh & Anr. vs. State of Haryana
Judgment Date: 10 October 2018
Date of the Judgment: 10 October 2018
Citation: Not Available
Judges: R. Banumathi, J., and Indira Banerjee, J.
Can a conviction for attempted murder be modified to a lesser offense if the medical evidence is ambiguous? This was the question before the Supreme Court in the case of Rakesh & Anr. vs. State of Haryana. The Supreme Court examined the High Court’s decision, which upheld the conviction of the appellants for attempted murder and for offences under the Arms Act. The Supreme Court bench, comprising Justices R. Banumathi and Indira Banerjee, delivered the judgment.
Case Background
The case involves a long-standing feud between two families. The conflict began when Jai Kishan, son of the complainant, allegedly abducted Dolly, the daughter of Rajinder and sister of the accused. On 12th April, 2000, at approximately 5:30-5:45 AM, Raj Kishan (PW-6), the complainant’s son, was attacked while going to answer nature’s call. Rakesh, the first accused, allegedly struck Raj Kishan on the head with a “dang,” and Dalbir, the second accused, shot him in the neck.
Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2000 (Date not specified) | Jai Kishan allegedly abducts Dolly, leading to enmity between families. |
| 12th April, 2000 | Raj Kishan is attacked by Rakesh and Dalbir. |
| 4th March, 2015 | High Court of Punjab and Haryana confirms the conviction and sentence of the appellants. |
| 10th October, 2018 | Supreme Court reduces the sentence of the appellants. |
Course of Proceedings
The Trial Court convicted both accused under Sections 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), sentencing them to seven years of rigorous imprisonment. They were also convicted under Sections 324 and 323 of the IPC, receiving two years and one year of rigorous imprisonment, respectively. Dalbir was additionally convicted under Section 25 of the Arms Act and sentenced to two years of rigorous imprisonment. The High Court of Punjab and Haryana upheld these convictions and sentences. The accused then appealed to the Supreme Court.
Legal Framework
The relevant 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:
“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 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC): This section addresses acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention. It states:
“When a criminal act is done by several persons in furtherance of the common intention of all, each of such persons is liable for that act in the same manner as if it were done by him alone.” - Section 325 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC): This section deals with the offense of voluntarily causing grievous hurt. It states:
“Whoever, except in the case provided by section 335, voluntarily causes grievous hurt, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.” - Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC): This section deals with the offense of voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons or means. It states:
“Whoever, except in the case provided 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.” - Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC): This section deals with the offense of voluntarily causing hurt. It states:
“Whoever, except in the case provided by section 334, voluntarily causes hurt, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both.” - Section 25 of the Arms Act: This section deals with punishment for certain offenses related to arms.
Arguments
The appellants’ counsel argued that the medical evidence was not conclusive. Specifically, they pointed out that Dr. G.P. Aggrawal (PW-12) had stated that injury no. 2 could have been caused by a blunt weapon, not necessarily a firearm. Based on this, the counsel argued that the conviction under Section 307 of the IPC was not sustainable and should be modified to Section 325 of the IPC (voluntarily causing grievous hurt). Additionally, the counsel requested a reduction in the sentence given the appellants’ ages at the time of the incident (26 and 24 years old).
| Main Submission | Sub-Submissions |
|---|---|
| Modification of Conviction |
|
| Reduction of Sentence |
|
Issues Framed by the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame issues in the judgment. However, the central issue before the court was:
- Whether the conviction under Section 307 of the IPC was justified based on the medical and other evidence presented.
- Whether the sentence imposed on the appellants was appropriate considering the circumstances and their age at the time of the offense.
Treatment of the Issue by the Court
The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues
| Issue | Court’s Decision | Reason |
|---|---|---|
| Whether the conviction under Section 307 of the IPC was justified? | Conviction under Section 307 of the IPC upheld. | The court considered the testimony of the injured witness (PW-6) and the nature of the injuries. The court noted that a pistol was recovered from the second appellant. |
| Whether the sentence imposed was appropriate? | Sentence reduced to five years. | The court considered the age of the appellants at the time of the incident (year 2000) and the facts and circumstances of the case. |
Authorities
The judgment did not explicitly mention any authorities (cases, books, etc.) relied upon by the court.
| Authority | Court | How it was considered |
|---|---|---|
| None | N/A | N/A |
Judgment
| Submission by the Parties | How the Court Treated the Submission |
|---|---|
| Modification of conviction from Section 307 to Section 325 of the IPC. | Rejected. The Court upheld the conviction under Section 307 of the IPC, based on the testimony of the injured witness and the nature of injuries. |
| Reduction of sentence. | Partially Accepted. The Court reduced the sentence of imprisonment from seven years to five years, considering the age of the appellants at the time of the incident and the circumstances of the case. |
| Authority | How it was viewed by the Court |
|---|---|
| None | N/A |
What weighed in the mind of the Court?
The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the following factors:
- Testimony of the injured witness: The court placed significant weight on the testimony of Raj Kishan (PW-6), who was the victim of the attack.
- Nature of injuries: The court considered the severity and nature of the injuries sustained by Raj Kishan.
- Recovery of the pistol: The recovery of the pistol from the second appellant was also a factor in the court’s decision.
- Age of the appellants: The court took into account the age of the appellants at the time of the incident while reducing the sentence.
| Sentiment | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Testimony of the injured witness | 30% |
| Nature of injuries | 30% |
| Recovery of the pistol | 20% |
| Age of the appellants | 20% |
Fact:Law Ratio
| Category | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Fact | 70% |
| Law | 30% |
Logical Reasoning
Incident: Raj Kishan attacked
Medical Evidence: Injury No. 2 could be from a blunt weapon
Court considers testimony of injured witness (PW-6) and nature of injuries
Conviction under Section 307 of the IPC upheld
Court considers age of appellants at the time of the incident
Sentence reduced from seven years to five years
The court did not consider any alternative interpretations of the evidence that would lead to a different outcome. The court’s decision was based on the facts presented and the applicable laws.
The Supreme Court upheld the conviction under Section 307 of the IPC, stating that the testimony of the injured witness and the nature of the injuries justified the conviction. However, the court reduced the sentence of imprisonment from seven years to five years, considering the age of the appellants at the time of the incident.
The court stated:
- “Having regard to the testimony of injured witness-Raj Kishan (PW-6) and the nature of the injuries, in our view the conviction under Section 307 I.P.C. is justified…”
- “Since the occurrence was of the year 2000 and in the facts and circumstances of the present case and also considering the age of the appellants at the time of the occurrence, the sentence of imprisonment imposed upon them is reduced to five years.”
There were no dissenting opinions in this case.
The Supreme Court’s reasoning was based on the factual evidence presented, particularly the testimony of the injured witness and the medical evidence. The court applied the relevant legal provisions to the facts of the case and concluded that the conviction under Section 307 of the IPC was justified. The reduction in sentence was based on the mitigating factor of the appellants’ age at the time of the offense.
This judgment could have implications for future cases involving attempted murder, particularly in cases where the medical evidence is not entirely conclusive. The court’s emphasis on the testimony of the injured witness suggests that it will continue to be a crucial piece of evidence in such cases. The court’s willingness to reduce the sentence based on the age of the appellants also indicates a consideration of mitigating factors in sentencing.
No new doctrines or legal principles were introduced in this case.
Key Takeaways
- The testimony of the injured witness is a crucial piece of evidence in cases of attempted murder.
- The nature and severity of injuries are significant factors in determining guilt under Section 307 of the IPC.
- Courts may consider mitigating factors, such as the age of the accused, when determining the sentence.
- Even if medical evidence is not entirely conclusive, the court may still uphold the conviction based on other evidence.
Directions
There were no specific directions given by the Supreme Court in this case.
Specific Amendments Analysis
There was no specific amendment analysis in this judgment.
Development of Law
The ratio decidendi of the case is that the conviction under Section 307 of the IPC can be upheld based on the testimony of the injured witness and the nature of the injuries, even if the medical evidence is not entirely conclusive. There was no change in the previous positions of law.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court upheld the conviction of the appellants under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, but reduced their sentence from seven years to five years, considering their age at the time of the offense. The court relied on the testimony of the injured witness and the nature of the injuries to justify the conviction. This case highlights the importance of witness testimony and the court’s consideration of mitigating factors in sentencing.
Category:
Criminal Law
└ Indian Penal Code, 1860
└ Section 307, Indian Penal Code, 1860
└ Section 34, Indian Penal Code, 1860
└ Section 325, Indian Penal Code, 1860
└ Section 324, Indian Penal Code, 1860
└ Section 323, Indian Penal Code, 1860
└ Arms Act
└ Section 25, Arms Act
FAQ
Q: What is Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code?
A: Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code deals with the offense of attempt to murder. It punishes anyone who does an act with the intention or knowledge that, if they caused death, they would be guilty of murder.
Q: What is the significance of witness testimony in attempted murder cases?
A: Witness testimony, especially from the injured party, is a crucial piece of evidence. Courts often rely on such testimony to establish the facts of the case and the intent of the accused.
Q: Can a conviction for attempted murder be modified to a lesser offense?
A: Yes, it can be modified if the evidence is not conclusive. In this case, the appellants argued for modification to Section 325 of the IPC. However, the court did not agree.
Q: What factors do courts consider when determining the sentence in criminal cases?
A: Courts consider various factors, including the nature of the offense, the severity of the injuries, the age of the accused, and any mitigating circumstances.
Q: What is the impact of this judgment on future cases?
A: This judgment reinforces the importance of witness testimony and the court’s willingness to consider mitigating factors in sentencing, particularly the age of the accused.