Supreme Court Upholds High Court Decision on Attempt to Murder Charge: Champa Lal Dhakar vs. Naval Singh Rajput (2019) INSC 1

Date of the Judgment: January 4, 2019

Citation: (2019) INSC 1

Judges: Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, Justice M.R. Shah

Can a charge of attempt to murder be sustained solely based on the number of attackers, or is the nature of injuries sustained by the victim more critical? The Supreme Court of India addressed this question in a recent criminal appeal, focusing on the interpretation of Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The court examined whether the High Court of Madhya Pradesh was justified in setting aside the trial court’s order to frame charges of attempt to murder against the accused. The bench comprised Justice D.Y. Chandrachud and Justice M.R. Shah, who delivered the judgment.

Case Background

The case originated from a First Information Report (FIR) lodged by the appellant, Champa Lal Dhakar, against the respondents, who were the original accused. The FIR alleged offences under Sections 147, 148, 451, 325/149, 307/149, 294/149, and 506/149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). The Additional Sessions Judge, Sironj, District Vidisha, framed charges against the accused under these sections. The accused then filed a revision application before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, challenging the framing of charges, particularly under Section 307 of the IPC, which deals with attempt to murder.

The High Court, after reviewing the injuries sustained by the complainant, found that the evidence did not support a charge under Section 307 of the IPC. It partly allowed the revision application, setting aside the trial court’s order regarding the charge under Section 307 and directed the trial court to reconsider the charges, suggesting that a charge under Section 325 of the IPC (voluntarily causing grievous hurt) would be more appropriate. Aggrieved by this decision, the original complainant, Champa Lal Dhakar, appealed to the Supreme Court.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The Additional Sessions Judge, Sironj, District Vidisha, initially framed charges against the accused under Sections 147, 148, 451, 325/149, 307/149, 294/149, and 506/149 of the IPC. The accused then challenged this order by filing a Criminal Revision Application before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh. The High Court, upon reviewing the case and considering the nature of the injuries sustained by the complainant, concluded that the charge under Section 307 of the IPC was not justified. Consequently, the High Court partly allowed the revision application, setting aside the trial court’s order regarding the charge under Section 307 of the IPC. The High Court directed the trial court to reconsider the charges and proceed in accordance with the law, suggesting that a charge under Section 325 of the IPC would be more appropriate. The original complainant, feeling aggrieved by the High Court’s decision, then approached the Supreme Court by way of a criminal appeal.

Legal Framework

The primary legal provision in question is Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, which deals with “Attempt to Murder.” The section 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.”

This section specifies that for an act to constitute an attempt to murder, it must be done with the intention or knowledge that, if death were caused, it would amount to murder. The punishment varies depending on whether hurt is caused to the victim. The case also references Section 325 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, which pertains to voluntarily causing grievous hurt.

Arguments

Arguments on behalf of the Appellant (Original Complainant):

• The complainant argued that approximately 17 to 18 persons attacked and beat him with the intention to commit murder.
• It was submitted that the trial court had correctly framed the charge under Section 307 of the IPC, and the High Court erred in setting aside this order.
• The complainant contended that the trial court had exercised its discretion judiciously, and the High Court should not have interfered in its revisional jurisdiction.

Arguments on behalf of the Respondents (Original Accused):

• The accused supported the order passed by the High Court, which had set aside the charge under Section 307 of the IPC.

The complainant argued that the sheer number of attackers (17-18) and the nature of the assault indicated an intention to commit murder, thus justifying the charge under Section 307 of the IPC. The accused, on the other hand, contended that the injuries sustained by the complainant did not warrant a charge of attempt to murder, and the High Court rightly set aside the charge under Section 307 of the IPC.

The innovativeness of the argument made by the complainant was that the sheer number of attackers should be a factor in determining the intention to commit murder.

Submissions Table

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame issues in a separate section, but the core issue was:

• Whether the High Court was correct in setting aside the trial court’s order framing charges under Section 307 of the IPC, based on the nature of injuries sustained by the complainant.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following legal provision:

• Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860: This section defines the offense of attempt to murder. The court analyzed the requirements of this section, particularly the need for an intention or knowledge to cause death.
• Section 325 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860: This section defines the offense of voluntarily causing grievous hurt. The court considered that the injuries sustained by the complainant fell under this provision.

Authority Table

Judgment

How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860: The court analyzed this provision and concluded that the facts did not establish an intention to cause death, which is a necessary element for an offense under this section.
• Section 325 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860: The court determined that the nature of the injuries sustained by the complainant fell within the ambit of this section, which deals with voluntarily causing grievous hurt.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the nature of the injuries sustained by the complainant. The Court emphasized that while the complainant did suffer injuries, including a nasal bone fracture, these injuries did not demonstrate an intention to cause death. The Court focused on the requirement of Section 307 of the IPC, which necessitates proof of intention or knowledge that the act, if it caused death, would amount to murder. The Court found that the evidence did not support such an intention, and therefore, the charge under Section 307 of the IPC was not warranted. The Court agreed with the High Court’s view that a charge under Section 325 of the IPC (voluntarily causing grievous hurt) was more appropriate.

Fact:Law Ratio

Logical Reasoning

Key Takeaways

• The mere fact that multiple individuals attacked a complainant does not automatically lead to a charge of attempt to murder under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
• The nature of injuries sustained by the complainant is a critical factor in determining whether the accused had the intention or knowledge to cause death.
• For a charge under Section 307 of the IPC to be sustainable, there must be sufficient evidence to show that the act was done with such intention or knowledge that, if death were caused, it would amount to murder.
• If the injuries sustained do not indicate an intention to cause death, a charge under Section 325 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (voluntarily causing grievous hurt) may be more appropriate.

Directions

The Supreme Court did not give any specific directions to the lower courts, other than to proceed with the charges as per the observations made in the judgment, indicating that the charge under Section 325 of the IPC should be considered.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that the intention to commit murder, as required under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, cannot be presumed solely based on the number of attackers. The nature and severity of the injuries sustained by the victim are crucial in determining whether there was an intention to cause death. This judgment reinforces the principle that the application of Section 307 requires a clear demonstration of intent to cause death, rather than merely an act that could potentially cause death. There is no change in the previous position of law, but the judgment clarifies the application of Section 307 in cases involving multiple assailants.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal filed by the original complainant, upholding the High Court’s decision to set aside the charge under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The court emphasized that the nature of injuries sustained by the complainant did not indicate an intention to cause death, which is a necessary element for an offense under Section 307. The court agreed that a charge under Section 325 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, for voluntarily causing grievous hurt, was more appropriate. This judgment underscores the importance of examining the specific facts of each case, particularly the nature of injuries, when determining whether an attempt to murder charge is warranted.