Date of the Judgment: 12 November 2021
Citation: (2021) INSC 710
Judges: M. R. Shah, J., A.S. Bopanna, J.
Can a single stab wound be considered an attempt to murder? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question in a case involving a brutal assault. The court examined whether the nature of the injury, the weapon used, and the part of the body targeted were sufficient to uphold a conviction for attempt to murder under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The bench, comprising Justices M. R. Shah and A.S. Bopanna, delivered a unanimous judgment, affirming the High Court’s decision.
Case Background
The case revolves around an incident where the appellants, Sadakat Kotwar and Refaz Kotwar, assaulted Mohd. Jamil Kotwar (PW8) and Samsera Bibi (PW7). The prosecution presented evidence that Refaz Kotwar stabbed Mohd. Jamil Kotwar with a dagger on the right side of his stomach and left ribs, while Sadakat Kotwar stabbed Samsera Bibi in her ribs. The incident occurred after the accused pushed and took PW7’s husband out of the house. The prosecution examined ten witnesses, including the two injured eyewitnesses, PW7 and PW8, who supported the prosecution’s version of events. The Trial Court convicted the accused under Section 307 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, which was upheld by the High Court of Jharkhand.
Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Not Specified | Incident occurs where Refaz Kotwar stabs Mohd. Jamil Kotwar (PW8) and Sadakat Kotwar stabs Samsera Bibi (PW7). |
| Not Specified | Trial Court convicts the accused under Section 307 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. |
| 01.07.2019 | High Court of Jharkhand upholds the conviction in Criminal Appeal (SJ) No.393 of 2004. |
| 12.11.2021 | Supreme Court dismisses the appeal and upholds the conviction. |
Course of Proceedings
The Trial Court convicted the appellants for the offence under Section 307 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi upheld this conviction in Criminal Appeal (SJ) No.393 of 2004. The appellants then appealed to the Supreme Court challenging the concurrent findings of guilt.
Legal Framework
The case primarily involves Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, which deals with attempt to murder, and Section 34 of the same code, which addresses acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention.
- Section 307, Indian Penal Code, 1860: This section 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, Indian Penal Code, 1860: This section 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.”
Arguments
The appellants argued that the case should fall under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (punishment for voluntarily causing hurt), rather than Section 307, because it involved a single blow/injury. They contended that the courts below erred in convicting them for attempt to murder.
The prosecution argued that the injuries were inflicted on vital parts of the body (stomach and near the chest) with a sharp cutting weapon, resulting in grievous injuries. They relied on the testimony of the injured eyewitnesses (PW7 and PW8) and other witnesses to establish the guilt of the accused.
| Main Submission | Sub-Submissions |
|---|---|
| Appellants’ Submission: Conviction should be under Section 323 IPC, not Section 307 IPC |
|
| Prosecution’s Submission: Conviction under Section 307 IPC is correct |
|
Issues Framed by the Supreme Court
The primary issue before the Supreme Court was whether the High Court was correct in upholding the conviction of the appellants under Section 307 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, for attempt to murder, given that the injuries were caused by a single blow.
Treatment of the Issue by the Court
| Issue | Court’s Decision | Reasoning |
|---|---|---|
| Whether the conviction under Section 307 IPC was correct given the single blow? | Upheld | The Court held that the injuries were inflicted on vital parts of the body (stomach and chest) with a deadly weapon. The nature of the injury and the weapon used indicated the intention to cause death, thus justifying the conviction under Section 307 IPC. |
Authorities
The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:
| Authority | Court | How it was Considered |
|---|---|---|
| State of M.P. vs. Mansingh, (2003) 10 SCC 414 | Supreme Court of India | The Court relied on this case to emphasize the evidentiary value of an injured eyewitness’s testimony. |
| Mahesh Balmiki vs. State of M.P., (2000) 1 SCC 319 | Supreme Court of India | The Court cited this case to highlight that a single blow can attract Section 302 (murder), Section 304 (culpable homicide not amounting to murder), or Section 326 (voluntarily causing grievous hurt) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, depending on the facts of the case. |
| Jai Narain Mishra and Ors. Vs. State of Bihar, (1971) 3 SCC 762 | Supreme Court of India | The Court distinguished this case, stating it was not applicable due to the specific facts of the present case, particularly the weapon used and the nature of the injuries on vital parts of the body. |
| Section 307, Indian Penal Code, 1860 | Statute | The Court interpreted and applied the provision to the facts of the case. |
| Section 34, Indian Penal Code, 1860 | Statute | The Court applied this provision to establish the liability of both appellants for the criminal act. |
Judgment
| Submission | Court’s Treatment |
|---|---|
| Appellants’ submission that the case should fall under Section 323 IPC | Rejected. The Court held that the injuries were grievous and inflicted on vital parts of the body with a deadly weapon, thus attracting Section 307 IPC. |
| Authority | Court’s View |
|---|---|
| State of M.P. vs. Mansingh, (2003) 10 SCC 414 | The Court relied on this case to emphasize the evidentiary value of an injured eyewitness’s testimony. |
| Mahesh Balmiki vs. State of M.P., (2000) 1 SCC 319 | The Court cited this case to highlight that a single blow can attract Section 302 (murder), Section 304 (culpable homicide not amounting to murder), or Section 326 (voluntarily causing grievous hurt) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, depending on the facts of the case. |
| Jai Narain Mishra and Ors. Vs. State of Bihar, (1971) 3 SCC 762 | The Court distinguished this case, stating it was not applicable due to the specific facts of the present case, particularly the weapon used and the nature of the injuries on vital parts of the body. |
What weighed in the mind of the Court?
The Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the grievous nature of the injuries, the use of a deadly weapon (dagger), and the fact that the injuries were inflicted on vital parts of the body (stomach and near the chest). The consistent testimony of the injured eyewitnesses and other prosecution witnesses also played a significant role. The Court emphasized that the intention to cause death could be inferred from the weapon used, the part of the body targeted, and the nature of the injury.
| Sentiment | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Grievous nature of injuries | 30% |
| Use of deadly weapon | 25% |
| Injuries on vital body parts | 25% |
| Consistent eyewitness testimony | 20% |
| Category | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Fact | 40% |
| Law | 60% |
The Court reasoned that, “nobody can enter into the mind of the accused and his intention has to be ascertained from the weapon used, part of the body chosen for assault and the nature of the injury caused.” The Court further observed that, “the injury of a single blow was on the vital part of the body i.e. stomach and near chest” and that, “the nature of injuries was found to be grievous caused by sharp cutting instrument.”
The Court rejected the argument that the case should fall under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, emphasizing that the nature and location of the injuries, coupled with the use of a deadly weapon, indicated an intention to cause death, thereby justifying the conviction under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
Key Takeaways
- A single blow can be considered an attempt to murder if inflicted with a deadly weapon on a vital part of the body.
- The intention to cause death can be inferred from the nature of the injury, the weapon used, and the part of the body targeted.
- The testimony of injured eyewitnesses holds significant evidentiary value.
- The courts will consider the facts and circumstances of each case to determine the appropriate section of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
Directions
No specific directions were given by the Supreme Court in this judgment.
Development of Law
The ratio decidendi of this case is that the intention to commit murder can be inferred from the nature of the injury, the weapon used, and the part of the body targeted, even if it is a single blow. This case reinforces the established principle that the courts will examine the specific facts and circumstances of each case to determine the appropriate offense. There is no change in the previous position of law.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the conviction of the appellants under Section 307 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The Court emphasized that the grievous nature of the injuries, the use of a deadly weapon, and the targeting of vital body parts were sufficient to establish the intention to cause death, thus justifying the conviction for attempt to murder.