LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the accused had the intention to commit murder and whether the act done by the accused amounts to an attempt to murder.

CASE TYPE: Criminal

Case Name: State of Madhya Pradesh v. Harjeet Singh & Anr.

[Judgment Date]: 19 February 2019

Date of the Judgment: 19 February 2019
Citation: Criminal Appeal No. 1190 of 2009
Judges: L. Nageswara Rao J., Indu Malhotra J.
Can a conviction for attempt to murder be upheld even if the injuries are not on vital parts of the body? The Supreme Court of India addressed this question in a recent criminal appeal, examining the conviction of an accused for attempt to murder under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The Court considered whether the High Court was correct in reducing the sentence of the accused from Section 307 to Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench comprising Justice L. Nageswara Rao and Justice Indu Malhotra, with Justice Indu Malhotra authoring the opinion.

Case Background

On 12th November 1997, Sukhdev, along with his brothers Balveer Yadav and Deshraj Yadav, went to the District Court, Ashok Nagar, to attend a hearing against Harjeet Singh. After the hearing, while they were standing near the jail, Harjeet Singh, along with Ramji Lal and an unidentified person, attacked Sukhdev. Harjeet Singh stabbed Sukhdev multiple times with a knife, causing injuries to his chest, scapula, back, and hips. Sukhdev was immediately taken to the Civil Hospital, Ashok Nagar, for treatment.

The medical examination revealed four injuries caused by a sharp-edged object: a stab wound in the chest cavity, an incised wound on the right buttock, and stab wounds on the left scapula and hip. X-rays showed haziness in the left lung due to trauma. On 24th November 1997, Harjeet Singh and Ramji Lal were arrested. The knife used in the assault was recovered based on Harjeet Singh’s statement.

Timeline

Date Event
12 November 1997 Sukhdev and his brothers go to District Court, Ashok Nagar for a hearing against Harjeet Singh.
12 November 1997 Harjeet Singh, along with Ramji Lal and an unidentified person, attacks Sukhdev near the jail, stabbing him multiple times.
12 November 1997 Sukhdev is admitted to Civil Hospital, Ashok Nagar for treatment.
24 November 1997 Harjeet Singh and Ramji Lal are arrested by the police.
30 November 1998 The Sessions Court finds Harjeet Singh and Ramji Lal guilty of attempt to murder.
03 January 2006 The Madhya Pradesh High Court partly allows the appeal, reducing Harjeet Singh’s conviction to Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and acquitting Ramji Lal.
08 July 2009 Special leave to appeal was granted by the Supreme Court.
19 February 2019 The Supreme Court partially allows the appeal, setting aside the High Court’s judgment regarding Harjeet Singh and restoring the Sessions Court’s conviction. The acquittal of Ramji Lal by the High Court was upheld.

Course of Proceedings

The Sessions Court convicted Harjeet Singh under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, sentencing him to 5 years of rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1000. Ramji Lal was convicted under Section 307 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and received the same sentence. Both accused appealed to the Madhya Pradesh High Court.

The High Court partly allowed the appeal, reducing Harjeet Singh’s conviction to Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and sentencing him to one year of rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,000. The High Court acquitted Ramji Lal, citing inconsistencies in the statements of the witnesses regarding his role in the incident. The State of Madhya Pradesh then filed a Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court challenging the High Court’s judgment.

Legal Framework

The case primarily revolves around Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, which deals with attempt to murder. It states that:

“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 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, which deals with voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons or means, was also considered. It states that:

“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.”

The Court also referred to Section 319 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, which defines “hurt” as:

See also  Supreme Court overturns conviction in double murder case due to flawed investigation: Ranvir Singh vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (2023) INSC 25

“Whoever causes bodily pain, disease or infirmity to any person is said to cause hurt.”

The Court also referred to Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, which deals with acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention, which states that:

“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.”

Arguments

The State of Madhya Pradesh argued that the High Court erred in reducing the conviction of Harjeet Singh from Section 307 to Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The State contended that the multiple stab wounds inflicted by Harjeet Singh, including one on the chest that injured the lung, clearly demonstrated an intention to cause death. The State also argued that the nature of the weapon used (a knife) and the severity of the attack justified a conviction under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

The accused, Harjeet Singh, argued that the High Court was correct in reducing the conviction to Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, as the injuries were not on vital parts of the body. He contended that there was no intention to commit murder. The accused also argued that the inconsistencies in the statements of the witnesses regarding Ramji Lal’s role were valid, and the High Court was correct in acquitting him.

Submission Sub-Submissions
State of Madhya Pradesh’s Argument: The High Court erred in reducing the conviction of Harjeet Singh from Section 307 to Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
  • Multiple stab wounds, including one on the chest that injured the lung, demonstrated an intention to cause death.
  • The nature of the weapon (a knife) and the severity of the attack justified a conviction under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
Harjeet Singh’s Argument: The High Court was correct in reducing the conviction to Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
  • Injuries were not on vital parts of the body.
  • There was no intention to commit murder.
  • Inconsistencies in the statements of the witnesses regarding Ramji Lal’s role were valid.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court considered the following issue:

  1. Whether the High Court was correct in reducing the conviction of Accused No. 1 from Section 307 to Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860?

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

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

Issue Court’s Decision and Reasoning
Whether the High Court was correct in reducing the conviction of Accused No. 1 from Section 307 to Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860? The Supreme Court held that the High Court was incorrect in reducing the conviction. The Court found that the prosecution had proved beyond reasonable doubt that Accused No. 1 had attempted to murder the complainant. The Court noted that the multiple stab wounds, including one on the chest that injured the lung, along with the use of a dangerous weapon, demonstrated the intention to cause death, thereby satisfying the requirements of Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

Authorities

The Supreme Court relied on the following cases and legal provisions:

Authority Legal Point How the Authority was used
R. Prakash v. State of Karnataka, (2004) 9 SCC 27 (Supreme Court of India) Intent and overt act in Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 The Court cited this case to emphasize that a conviction under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, requires an intent coupled with an overt act. It is not essential that a fatal injury capable of causing death should have been inflicted. The court also stated that intention can be deduced from the circumstances.
State of Madhya Pradesh v. Mohan & Ors, (2013) 14 SCC 116 (Supreme Court of India) Definition of hurt in Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 The Court used this case to highlight that Section 307 uses the term “hurt” as defined in Section 319 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and not “grievous hurt” as defined in Section 320 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. If a person causes hurt with the intention or knowledge that he may cause death, it would attract Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
Jage Ram v. State of Haryana, (2015) 11 SCC 366 (Supreme Court of India) Intention and act in Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 The Court referred to this case to reiterate that for a conviction under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, the prosecution has to establish the intention to commit murder and the act done by the accused. The intention can be gathered from the circumstances, such as the nature of the weapon, words used by the accused, motive, parts of the body where the injury was caused, and the severity of the blows.
State of M.P. v. Kanha @ Omprakash, Criminal Appeal No. 1589/2018, decided on 04.02.2019 (Supreme Court of India) Proof of grievous hurt not a requirement for Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 The Court cited this recent case to conclude that proof of grievous or life-threatening hurt is not a prerequisite for an offence under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The intention of the accused can be ascertained from the actual injury, if any, as well as from surrounding circumstances, including the nature of the weapon and the severity of the blows.
Section 307, Indian Penal Code, 1860 Attempt to murder The Court analyzed the ingredients of this provision to determine whether the accused’s actions constituted an attempt to murder.
Section 324, Indian Penal Code, 1860 Voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons or means The Court considered this provision to determine whether the accused’s actions should be categorized under this section instead of Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
Section 319, Indian Penal Code, 1860 Definition of hurt The Court used this provision to define the term “hurt” as used in Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
Section 34, Indian Penal Code, 1860 Acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention The Court considered this provision in relation to the charges against Ramji Lal.
See also  Supreme Court Upholds Land Acquisition: DDA vs. Rajesh Dua (2023)

Judgment

The Supreme Court partially allowed the appeal filed by the State of Madhya Pradesh. The Court set aside the High Court’s judgment regarding Harjeet Singh and restored the Sessions Court’s conviction under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. Harjeet Singh was directed to serve the remainder of his 5-year sentence. However, the Court upheld the High Court’s decision to acquit Ramji Lal.

Submission by Parties Treatment by the Court
The State of Madhya Pradesh argued that the High Court erred in reducing the conviction of Harjeet Singh from Section 307 to Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The Supreme Court agreed with the State’s submission, holding that the High Court was incorrect in reducing the conviction. The Court found that the prosecution had proved beyond reasonable doubt that Harjeet Singh had attempted to murder the complainant.
Harjeet Singh argued that the High Court was correct in reducing the conviction to Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, as the injuries were not on vital parts of the body. The Supreme Court rejected this argument, stating that the injuries, including the one on the chest that injured the lung, along with the use of a knife, demonstrated an intention to cause death. The Court clarified that it is not essential for injuries to be on vital parts of the body to attract Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
Harjeet Singh argued that there was no intention to commit murder. The Supreme Court rejected this argument, stating that the intention could be inferred from the nature of the weapon, the severity of the attack, and the multiple blows inflicted on the victim.
Harjeet Singh argued that the inconsistencies in the statements of the witnesses regarding Ramji Lal’s role were valid. The Supreme Court agreed with this submission, upholding the High Court’s decision to acquit Ramji Lal due to inconsistencies in witness statements.

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

  • R. Prakash v. State of Karnataka, (2004) 9 SCC 27*: The Court followed this authority to emphasize that a conviction under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, requires an intent coupled with an overt act and that it is not essential that a fatal injury capable of causing death should have been inflicted.
  • State of Madhya Pradesh v. Mohan & Ors, (2013) 14 SCC 116*: The Court followed this authority to highlight that Section 307 uses the term “hurt” as defined in Section 319 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and not “grievous hurt” as defined in Section 320 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
  • Jage Ram v. State of Haryana, (2015) 11 SCC 366*: The Court followed this authority to reiterate that for a conviction under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, the prosecution has to establish the intention to commit murder and the act done by the accused.
  • State of M.P. v. Kanha @ Omprakash, Criminal Appeal No. 1589/2018, decided on 04.02.2019*: The Court followed this authority to conclude that proof of grievous or life-threatening hurt is not a prerequisite for an offence under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court emphasized the following points in its reasoning:

  • The medical evidence clearly showed that the stab wound on the chest injured the complainant’s lung, contradicting the High Court’s finding.
  • The use of a knife, a dangerous weapon, to inflict multiple injuries on the complainant, including near vital organs, indicated an intention to cause death.
  • The Court reiterated that for a conviction under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, it is not essential that a fatal injury capable of causing death should have been caused. It is sufficient if there was an intention coupled with some overt act.
  • The Court held that the intention of the accused can be deduced from the circumstances, such as the nature of the weapon used, the words used by the accused, the motive, the parts of the body where the injury was caused, and the severity of the blows given.
  • The Court stated that the motive of the assault was clearly established by the prosecution as there was an existing dispute which was the subject matter of a court case.
Reason Percentage
Medical evidence of lung injury 25%
Use of a dangerous weapon 25%
Multiple injuries inflicted 20%
Intention to cause death inferred from circumstances 20%
Motive of assault established 10%
See also  Sabarimala Temple Entry Ban on Women to be Examined by Larger Bench: Indian Young Lawyers Association vs. State of Kerala (2017)
Ratio Percentage
Fact 60%
Law 40%

Logical Reasoning

Issue: Whether the High Court was correct in reducing the conviction of Accused No. 1 from Section 307 to Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860?

↓

Medical Evidence: Stab wound on chest injured the lung, contradicting High Court. Multiple injuries on vital and non-vital areas.

↓

Weapon & Intent: Knife used, a dangerous weapon. Multiple blows indicate intention to cause death.

↓

Legal Precedents: Citing R. Prakash, State of Madhya Pradesh v. Mohan, Jage Ram and State of M.P. v. Kanha, intention can be inferred from circumstances, and grievous hurt is not a prerequisite for Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

↓

Motive: Existing dispute and court case established motive for the assault.

↓

Conclusion: High Court erred. Conviction under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, restored for Accused No. 1.

Key Takeaways

  • A conviction for attempt to murder under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, can be upheld even if the injuries are not on vital parts of the body.
  • The intention to cause death can be inferred from the nature of the weapon used, the severity of the attack, the number of blows inflicted, and the circumstances of the case.
  • Proof of grievous or life-threatening hurt is not a prerequisite for an offence under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
  • The medical evidence, including the nature and location of the injuries, is crucial in determining the intention of the accused.
  • The motive for the assault can also be taken into consideration.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed Harjeet Singh to surrender before the Sessions Court, Ashok Nagar, Guna, M.P., within 2 weeks from the date of the judgment to serve the remainder of his 5-year sentence.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that for a conviction under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, it is not essential that the injury be on a vital part of the body or that the injury be grievous in nature. The intention to cause death can be inferred from the circumstances of the case, including the nature of the weapon used, the severity of the attack, the number of blows inflicted, and the motive for the assault. This judgment clarifies that the focus should be on the intention and actions of the accused rather than solely on the nature of the injuries sustained by the victim. This reinforces the position of law that Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, can be attracted even if the injuries are not on vital parts of the body and are not grievous in nature, as long as there is an intention to cause death.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s decision in State of Madhya Pradesh v. Harjeet Singh & Anr. reaffirms the legal position that an attempt to murder conviction under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, does not necessarily require injuries on vital body parts or grievous hurt. The Court emphasized that the intention of the accused, along with the act done, is paramount in determining whether an offence under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, is made out. The judgment underscores the importance of considering all circumstances of the case, including the nature of the weapon, the severity of the attack, and the motive of the accused, in determining the intention to commit murder.

Source: State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Harjeet Singh