LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the act of chopping off a person’s leg constitutes an attempt to murder under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
CASE TYPE: Criminal Law
Case Name: State of M.P. vs. Kashiram & Ors.
Judgment Date: 2nd February 2009
Date of the Judgment: 2nd February 2009
Citation: 2009 INSC 191
Judges: Dr. Arijit Pasayat, J., Asok Kumar Ganguly, J.
Can an act of grievous violence, like chopping off a person’s leg, be considered an attempt to murder even if the victim doesn’t die? The Supreme Court of India addressed this question in a criminal appeal, focusing on the interpretation of Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). The case involved a brutal assault where the victim’s leg was severed. The Supreme Court, in this judgment, emphasized that the intention and nature of the act, rather than just the outcome, are crucial in determining an attempt to murder. The judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench comprising of Justice Dr. Arijit Pasayat and Justice Asok Kumar Ganguly, with Justice Dr. Arijit Pasayat authoring the opinion.
Case Background
On July 21, 1987, the victim, Jai Singh (PW5), was grazing cattle when he was attacked by the respondents. The respondents, armed with weapons, assaulted Jai Singh. They tied his hands and legs, pressed his mouth shut, and then chopped off his left leg below the knee. The incident stemmed from some previous enmity. After the attack, Jai Singh was able to reach a nearby field where he informed Chain Singh about the incident. Subsequently, Umrao Singh and Roop Singh took him home. Due to heavy rain, Jai Singh could only lodge a police report on July 22, 1988, at 6:40 AM. He was then referred to a hospital for treatment. The police filed a charge sheet against the accused under Sections 147, 148, 149, 326, and 307 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| July 21, 1987 | The victim, Jai Singh, was attacked and his leg was chopped off. |
| July 22, 1988 | Jai Singh lodged a police report at Ahmadpur at 6:40 AM. |
| – | The police completed their investigation and filed a charge sheet. |
| – | The Trial Court convicted the accused. |
| – | The High Court altered the conviction and reduced the sentence. |
| February 2, 2009 | The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s judgment and restored the Trial Court’s decision. |
Course of Proceedings
The Trial Court found the accused guilty under Sections 307 read with 149 and 148 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and sentenced them to five years of rigorous imprisonment along with fines. The accused then appealed to the High Court of Madhya Pradesh. The High Court altered the conviction to Section 326 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, reducing the custodial sentence to the period already served and increasing the fine amount. The State of M.P. then appealed to the Supreme Court.
Legal Framework
The Supreme Court examined Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, which deals with attempt to murder. Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 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.”
The Court clarified that to justify a conviction under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, it is not essential that the bodily injury should be capable of causing death. The intention or knowledge of the accused and the circumstances of the act are crucial. The court emphasized that the section differentiates between the act and its result, and an attempt can be punishable even if the intended result does not occur.
Arguments
Appellant (State of M.P.) Arguments:
- The State argued that the High Court overlooked the gruesome nature of the offense.
- The State contended that the High Court also ignored the doctor’s statement (PW1) that the injury could have caused death.
Respondent (Accused) Arguments:
- The respondents supported the High Court’s judgment, arguing that the offense under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 was not made out.
The State argued that the High Court did not appreciate the gravity of the crime and the intention of the accused. The respondents argued that the injury was not sufficient to cause death and therefore, Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 is not attracted.
| Main Submission | Sub-Submissions |
|---|---|
| Appellant (State of M.P.) |
|
| Respondent (Accused) |
|
Issues Framed by the Supreme Court
The primary issue before the Supreme Court was:
- Whether the High Court was correct in altering the conviction from Section 307 to Section 326 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
Treatment of the Issue by the Court
| Issue | Court’s Decision |
|---|---|
| Whether the High Court was correct in altering the conviction from Section 307 to Section 326 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. | The Supreme Court held that the High Court was incorrect. The Supreme Court stated that the High Court had overlooked the evidence on record and the gruesome nature of the offense. The Court emphasized that the intention and nature of the act indicated an attempt to murder, and the fact that the victim did not die does not negate the offense under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. |
Authorities
The Supreme Court considered the following cases:
| Authority | Court | How it was used |
|---|---|---|
| State of Maharashtra v. Balram Bama Patil and Ors. (1983 (2) SCC 28) | Supreme Court of India | The court relied on this case to highlight that it is not essential that bodily injury capable of causing death should have been inflicted to justify a conviction under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. |
| Girija Shanker v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2004 (3) SCC 793) | Supreme Court of India | The court relied on this case to reiterate the principle that the intention or knowledge of the accused is the determinative factor in cases of attempt to murder. |
| R. Parkash v. State of Karnataka (JT 2004 (2) SC 348) | Supreme Court of India | The court relied on this case to emphasize that the nature of the injury is not the sole factor in determining the applicability of Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. |
| State of Madhya Pradesh v. Saleem @ Chamaru & Anr. (2005 (5) SCC 554) | Supreme Court of India | The court relied on this case to reinforce the position that an accused cannot be acquitted under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 merely because the injuries inflicted were simple. |
| Sevaka Perumal etc. v. State of Tamil Nadu (AIR 1991 SC 1463) | Supreme Court of India | The court relied on this case to highlight the duty of every court to award proper sentence having regard to the nature of the offence and the manner in which it was executed. |
Judgment
| Submission by Parties | Court’s Treatment |
|---|---|
| State’s submission that the High Court overlooked the gruesome nature of the offense and the doctor’s statement. | The Supreme Court agreed with the State and held that the High Court had overlooked the evidence on record and the gruesome nature of the offense. The Court noted that the doctor had stated that the injury could have caused death. |
| Respondents’ submission that the offense under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 was not made out. | The Supreme Court rejected the respondents’ submission. The Court held that the intention and nature of the act indicated an attempt to murder, and the fact that the victim did not die does not negate the offense under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. |
How each authority was viewed by the Court?
- State of Maharashtra v. Balram Bama Patil and Ors. [1983 (2) SCC 28]*: The Supreme Court used this case to support its view that it is not essential for a bodily injury to be capable of causing death for a conviction under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
- Girija Shanker v. State of Uttar Pradesh [2004 (3) SCC 793]*: The Supreme Court cited this case to emphasize that the intention or knowledge of the accused is the key factor in determining whether an act constitutes an attempt to murder.
- R. Parkash v. State of Karnataka [JT 2004 (2) SC 348]*: The Supreme Court relied on this case to highlight that the nature of the injury is not the sole determinant for applying Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
- State of Madhya Pradesh v. Saleem @ Chamaru & Anr. [2005 (5) SCC 554]*: The Supreme Court used this case to reinforce that an accused cannot be acquitted under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 merely because the injuries inflicted were simple.
- Sevaka Perumal etc. v. State of Tamil Nadu [AIR 1991 SC 1463]*: The Supreme Court cited this case to underline the duty of courts to impose appropriate sentences, considering the nature of the offense and how it was committed.
What weighed in the mind of the Court?
The Supreme Court was primarily influenced by the gruesome nature of the attack and the clear intention of the accused to cause death, as evidenced by their actions. The Court noted that the High Court had failed to properly consider the evidence and the gravity of the offense. The intention to kill was evident from the manner of the attack, where the victim’s leg was chopped off, and the accused even discussed chopping off his other leg and eyes, which indicated a clear intention to cause death. The Court also considered the testimony of the doctor (PW1), who stated that the injury could have caused death. The Court emphasized that the intention and nature of the act, rather than just the outcome, are crucial in determining an attempt to murder under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
| Sentiment | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Gruesome nature of the attack | 30% |
| Intention of the accused to cause death | 40% |
| Doctor’s testimony that injury could have caused death | 20% |
| Failure of High Court to consider evidence | 10% |
Fact:Law Ratio
| Category | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Fact | 60% |
| Law | 40% |
The court’s decision was influenced more by the factual aspects of the case, particularly the gruesome nature of the attack and the clear intention of the accused, than by purely legal considerations.
Logical Reasoning
The Supreme Court rejected the High Court’s interpretation that the injury was not sufficient to cause death. The Supreme Court clarified that Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 does not require that the injury should be sufficient to cause death, but rather, it requires that the act should be done with the intention or knowledge that it could cause death. The court emphasized that the intention of the accused and the circumstances of the act are crucial.
The Court also considered the fact that the accused had discussed chopping off the victim’s other leg and eyes, which indicated a clear intention to cause death. The Court also noted that the doctor had stated that the injury could have caused death. These factors weighed heavily in the Court’s decision to uphold the conviction under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
The Supreme Court also highlighted the need for courts to impose appropriate sentences, considering the nature of the offense and how it was committed. The Court emphasized that undue sympathy in sentencing would undermine public confidence in the justice system.
“The evidence of PW5 the victim clearly shows the gruesome nature of the attack and the intention of the accused persons.”
“To justify a conviction under this Section, it is not essential that bodily injury capable of causing death should have been inflicted.”
“The determinative question is intention or knowledge, as the case may be, and not nature of the injury.”
Key Takeaways
- An attempt to murder under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 does not require that the injury inflicted be sufficient to cause death.
- The intention and knowledge of the accused, along with the circumstances of the act, are crucial in determining whether an act constitutes an attempt to murder.
- Courts must consider the gruesome nature of the offense and the intention of the accused when deciding on convictions under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
- Undue sympathy in sentencing can undermine public confidence in the justice system.
- The nature of the injury is not the sole determinant for applying Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
Directions
The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s judgment and restored the Trial Court’s conviction and sentences.
Development of Law
The ratio decidendi of this case is that the intention and the nature of the act are crucial in determining whether an act constitutes an attempt to murder under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and that the injury inflicted need not be sufficient to cause death. This judgment reinforces the existing legal position and clarifies that the focus should be on the intent and the act itself, rather than solely on the consequences. There is no change in the previous positions of law, but the judgment provides a clear application of the existing law to a specific factual scenario.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s judgment in State of M.P. vs. Kashiram & Ors. (2009) underscores the importance of considering the intent and nature of the act in cases of attempted murder. The Court overturned the High Court’s decision, reinstating the Trial Court’s conviction under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. This case serves as a reminder that the severity of the act and the intention of the accused are paramount in determining culpability, and that the absence of a fatal outcome does not negate the charge of attempted murder.
Category
Parent Category: Indian Penal Code, 1860
Child Category: Section 307, Indian Penal Code, 1860
Child Category: Section 326, Indian Penal Code, 1860
Child Category: Attempt to Murder
Child Category: Criminal Law
FAQ
Q: What is Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860?
A: Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 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: Does an injury have to be fatal for an act to be considered an attempt to murder?
A: No, the injury does not have to be fatal. The key factor is whether the act was done with the intention or knowledge that it could cause death. The intention and nature of the act are more important than the actual outcome of the injury.
Q: What did the Supreme Court decide in the case of State of M.P. vs. Kashiram & Ors.?
A: The Supreme Court overturned the High Court’s decision and upheld the Trial Court’s conviction of the accused under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The Court emphasized that the act of chopping off a person’s leg, along with the intention of the accused, constituted an attempt to murder.
Q: What is the significance of this judgment?
A: This judgment clarifies that the intention and the nature of the act are crucial in determining whether an act constitutes an attempt to murder, and that the injury inflicted need not be sufficient to cause death. It also highlights the importance of courts considering the gruesome nature of the offense and the intention of the accused when deciding on convictions under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
Q: What should be the approach of the courts when awarding sentences?
A: The courts should award proper sentences by considering the nature of the offense and the manner in which it was executed. Undue sympathy in sentencing would undermine public confidence in the justice system.