Date of the Judgment: February 04, 2019
Citation: 2019 INSC 88
Judges: Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, J and MR Shah, J. This was a two-judge bench, with the judgment authored by Dr. Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, J.
Can a conviction for attempted murder be upheld even if the injuries inflicted are not life-threatening? The Supreme Court of India addressed this critical question in a recent case, clarifying the legal standards for proving intent in cases of attempted murder. This judgment underscores that the intention to cause death, rather than the severity of the injury, is the key factor in determining guilt under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code. The Supreme Court overturned the High Court’s decision and restored the Trial Court’s conviction for attempted murder.
Case Background
On October 8, 2003, an altercation occurred between two groups. The respondent, Kanha @ Omprakash, allegedly shot Dashrath Singh with a firearm, causing bleeding injuries to his right thigh. Dashrath Singh’s brother filed a complaint the same day at the Gwalior Police Station. The complaint stated that there was existing enmity between the families due to a love marriage and a dispute over a cable connection business. The accused were charged with forming an illegal assembly with the common intention of causing harm. The charges included Sections 147, 307, and 323 read with 149 of the Indian Penal Code.
Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| October 8, 2003 | Altercation between two parties; Kanha @ Omprakash shoots Dashrath Singh. |
| October 8, 2003 | Complaint filed at Gwalior Police Station by Dashrath Singh’s brother. |
| Charge-sheet filed under Sections 147, 307, 323 read with 149 of the Indian Penal Code. | |
| Trial Court convicts Kanha under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code. | |
| High Court converts conviction to Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code. | |
| February 04, 2019 | Supreme Court sets aside High Court’s judgment and restores Trial Court’s conviction. |
Course of Proceedings
The Trial Court found the respondent guilty under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to three years of rigorous imprisonment along with a fine of Rs 1,000. Seven other co-accused were acquitted. The respondent appealed to the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at its Gwalior Bench. The High Court converted the conviction from Section 307 to Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code, sentencing him to the period of imprisonment already undergone (forty days) and a fine of Rs 3,000. The State then appealed to the Supreme Court by Special Leave.
Legal Framework
The Supreme Court referred to Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, which states:
“307. Attempt to murder.—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 highlighted that the first part of Section 307 addresses acts done with the intention or knowledge that, if death resulted, would constitute murder. The second part of the section deals with situations where hurt is caused by such acts, prescribing a heavier punishment.
Arguments
State’s Arguments:
- The State argued that the High Court incorrectly assessed the evidence.
- Dr. P.K. Mishra (PW1) found eleven punctured wounds on the victim, caused by a firearm.
- The nature of injuries and the weapon used indicated an intention to commit murder, satisfying the requirements of Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code.
Respondent’s Arguments:
- The respondent argued that the prosecution did not conclusively prove the nature of the injuries.
- Neither Dr. P.K. Mishra (PW1) nor Dr. Amar Mukund Tiwari (PW2) gave opinions that the injuries were grievous or life-threatening.
- Since the injuries were caused by a shooting instrument, the offense falls under Section 324 instead of Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code.
The innovativeness of the argument from the respondent was that the nature of the injury was not explained and hence, it would not fall under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code.
Submissions Table
| Main Submission | Sub-Submissions | Party |
|---|---|---|
| Incorrect Appreciation of Evidence |
|
State |
| Nature of Injuries Not Proven |
|
Respondent |
Issues Framed by the Supreme Court
The main issue before the Supreme Court was whether the High Court was correct in converting the conviction of the respondent from Section 307 to Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code.
Treatment of the Issue by the Court
| Issue | How the Court Dealt with It |
|---|---|
| Whether the High Court was correct in converting the conviction of the respondent from Section 307 to Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code. | The Supreme Court held that the High Court was incorrect. The Court restored the conviction under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, noting that the intention to murder could be inferred from the nature of the injuries and the use of a firearm, even if the injuries were not life-threatening. |
Authorities
The Supreme Court relied on the following authorities:
- State of Maharashtra v Balram Bama Patil [1983] 2 SCC 28 – Supreme Court of India: The court held that it is not essential for a conviction under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code that a bodily injury capable of causing death should have been inflicted. The intention of the accused can be deduced from the circumstances.
- State of M P v Saleem [2005] 5 SCC 554 – Supreme Court of India: The court reiterated that an accused charged under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code cannot be acquitted merely because the injuries inflicted were simple in nature. The intention and act are the key factors.
- Jage Ram v State of Haryana [2015] 11 SCC 366 – Supreme Court of India: The court stated that to establish an offense under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, it is not essential that a fatal injury capable of causing death should have been inflicted. The intention can be gathered from the circumstances, including the nature of the weapon, words used, motive, and parts of the body injured.
- Pasupuleti Siva Ramakrishna Rao v State of Andhra Pradesh [2014] 5 SCC 369 – Supreme Court of India: The court emphasized that Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code provides for imprisonment for life if the act causes “hurt,” without requiring that the hurt be grievous or of any particular degree. The intention to cause death can be inferred from the circumstances.
The Supreme Court also considered Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, which deals with attempt to murder, and its key components.
Authority Table
| Authority | How the Court Considered It |
|---|---|
| State of Maharashtra v Balram Bama Patil [1983] 2 SCC 28 – Supreme Court of India | Followed: The court used this case to support the view that a conviction under Section 307 does not require a life-threatening injury, emphasizing the importance of intent. |
| State of M P v Saleem [2005] 5 SCC 554 – Supreme Court of India | Followed: The court cited this case to reinforce that an accused should not be acquitted under Section 307 merely because the injuries were simple, highlighting the focus on intent and action. |
| Jage Ram v State of Haryana [2015] 11 SCC 366 – Supreme Court of India | Followed: The court used this precedent to reiterate that a fatal injury is not necessary for a Section 307 conviction, and that intent can be inferred from various circumstances. |
| Pasupuleti Siva Ramakrishna Rao v State of Andhra Pradesh [2014] 5 SCC 369 – Supreme Court of India | Followed: The court cited this case to support that Section 307 applies even if the hurt is not grievous and that the intent to cause death can be inferred from the circumstances. |
Judgment
Treatment of Submissions
| Submission | How the Court Treated It |
|---|---|
| State’s Submission that the High Court incorrectly assessed the evidence and that the nature of injuries and the weapon used indicated an intention to commit murder. | Accepted: The Supreme Court agreed with the State, stating that the High Court overlooked the evidence of multiple punctured wounds caused by a firearm, which indicated an intention to murder. |
| Respondent’s submission that the prosecution did not conclusively prove the nature of the injuries and that the injuries were simple and hence, Section 307 would not apply. | Rejected: The Supreme Court rejected the respondent’s argument, holding that the lack of evidence of grievous or life-threatening injuries does not negate the applicability of Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code. The Court emphasized that the intention to murder, as evidenced by the use of a firearm and multiple wounds, was sufficient. |
Treatment of Authorities
| Authority | How the Court Viewed It |
|---|---|
| State of Maharashtra v Balram Bama Patil [1983] 2 SCC 28 – Supreme Court of India | The Court used this case to support its reasoning that the intention to commit murder is crucial under Section 307, and that the nature of the injury is not the sole determinant. |
| State of M P v Saleem [2005] 5 SCC 554 – Supreme Court of India | The Court cited this case to reinforce that a conviction under Section 307 is valid even if the injuries are simple, as long as there is an intention and an act towards committing murder. |
| Jage Ram v State of Haryana [2015] 11 SCC 366 – Supreme Court of India | The Court relied on this case to highlight that the intention to commit murder can be inferred from various circumstances, not just the severity of the injury. |
| Pasupuleti Siva Ramakrishna Rao v State of Andhra Pradesh [2014] 5 SCC 369 – Supreme Court of India | The Court used this case to support its view that Section 307 applies if an act causes hurt, regardless of the degree of the hurt, and that the intention to cause death can be inferred from the circumstances. |
What weighed in the mind of the Court?
The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the following factors:
- The presence of multiple punctured wounds caused by a firearm indicated a clear intention to cause death.
- The nature of the weapon used (a firearm) and the circumstances surrounding the incident strongly suggested an intent to murder.
- The legal precedents established that a conviction under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code does not require a life-threatening injury if the intention to murder is evident.
- The High Court had overlooked material parts of the evidence and had erred in converting the conviction to Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code.
Sentiment Analysis Table
| Reason | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Presence of multiple punctured wounds caused by a firearm | 35% |
| Nature of the weapon and circumstances of the incident | 30% |
| Legal precedents on Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code | 25% |
| High Court’s oversight of material evidence | 10% |
The Supreme Court’s reasoning was based on a combination of factual evidence and legal principles, with a strong emphasis on the intention of the accused.
Fact:Law Ratio Table
| Category | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Fact (Consideration of factual aspects) | 60% |
| Law (Consideration of legal principles) | 40% |
Logical Reasoning
Key Takeaways
The key takeaways from this judgment are:
- A conviction under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code for attempted murder does not require proof of life-threatening injuries.
- The intention to cause death is the primary factor in determining guilt under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code.
- The nature of the weapon used, the circumstances of the incident, and the number and type of injuries can be used to infer intent.
- High Courts must thoroughly assess all evidence and not overturn convictions based solely on the nature of the injuries.
- This judgment reinforces the importance of considering the totality of circumstances when evaluating cases of attempted murder.
Directions
The Supreme Court directed that the respondent should surrender to serve the sentence and that a copy of the judgment be forwarded to the Chief Judicial Magistrate for compliance.
Development of Law
The ratio decidendi of this case is that the intention to commit murder is the primary factor in determining guilt under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, and that the nature of the injury is not the sole determinant. This judgment reinforces the existing position of law that a conviction under Section 307 does not require proof of life-threatening injuries, as long as the intention to murder is established through evidence.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the judgment of the High Court, and restored the conviction of the respondent under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code. The Court emphasized that the intention to commit murder, as inferred from the use of a firearm and multiple injuries, was sufficient to uphold the conviction, even if the injuries were not life-threatening. This judgment reinforces the legal principle that the intention of the accused is paramount in cases of attempted murder.
Category
Parent Category: Indian Penal Code, 1860
Child Categories:
- Section 307, Indian Penal Code, 1860
- Attempt to Murder
- Criminal Law
- Supreme Court Judgments
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 states that if someone performs an act with the intention or knowledge that, if death resulted, would constitute murder, they can be punished for attempted murder.
Q: Does a person have to cause a life-threatening injury to be convicted under Section 307?
A: No, a life-threatening injury is not necessary for a conviction under Section 307. The key factor is the intention to cause death, which can be inferred from the circumstances, including the nature of the weapon used and the actions of the accused.
Q: What if the injuries caused are simple in nature?
A: Even if the injuries caused are simple, a conviction under Section 307 can still be valid if the court finds that the accused had the intention to commit murder. The focus is on the intention and the act, not just the result of the act.
Q: What factors do courts consider when determining intent in an attempted murder case?
A: Courts consider various factors, including the nature of the weapon used, the words spoken by the accused, the motive behind the act, the parts of the body where the injury was caused, and the severity of the blows given.
Q: What was the Supreme Court’s decision in this case?
A: The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s decision and restored the conviction under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code. The Court held that the intention to murder was evident and that the absence of life-threatening injuries did not negate the applicability of Section 307.