Supreme Court Upholds Life Imprisonment in Attempt to Murder Case: Ahsan vs. State of U.P. (29 August 2017)

Date of the Judgment: 29 August 2017. Citation: Not Available. Judges: R.K. Agrawal, J. and Abhay Manohar Sapre, J. This case addresses a critical question: When an individual is convicted of attempt to murder under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and the victim survives, is life imprisonment the appropriate sentence? The Supreme Court of India, in this judgment, examined the High Court’s decision to uphold the life sentence awarded to the accused. The bench comprised Justices R.K. Agrawal and Abhay Manohar Sapre, with the majority opinion authored by Justice Abhay Manohar Sapre.

Case Background

On October 8, 2004, at approximately 7:30 PM, Iliyas, the complainant, was near his paternal uncle Naseem’s house when he heard a commotion. Upon entering, he witnessed Manshad, Kamil, and Ahsan (the appellant) armed with country-made pistols, verbally abusing Istekhar, Shahzad, and Rukhsana. The three individuals fired their pistols, injuring Istekhar, Rukhsana (who was pregnant), and Shahzad. All three sustained critical injuries. The incident was witnessed by Khurshid, Shamshad, and Ikram. Iliyas filed a written report at the Shamli Police Station.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The trial proceeded in the Additional Sessions Judge’s Court, where Ahsan was charged under Sections 452, 307/34, 504, and 316/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The Trial Court convicted Ahsan on December 11, 2007, sentencing him to rigorous imprisonment and fines under various sections. Ahsan appealed to the High Court, which dismissed his appeal on April 21, 2015, upholding the Trial Court’s decision. The matter then reached the Supreme Court through a special leave petition, which was limited to the question of the quantum of sentence.

Legal Framework

The primary legal provision under consideration 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. Attempts by life convicts -When any person offending under this section is under sentence of imprisonment for life, he may, if hurt is caused, be punished with death.”

This section outlines different punishments based on the circumstances of the attempt to murder. The first part of Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 applies when an act is done with the intention or knowledge that could cause death, and it prescribes a sentence of up to ten years and fine. The second part applies when the act causes hurt, and it prescribes either imprisonment for life or the punishment mentioned in the first part. The third part deals with life convicts who cause hurt while attempting murder and prescribes death penalty.

Arguments

Appellant’s Arguments:

• The appellant’s counsel argued that since the victim, Shahzad, survived the gunshot injury, the sentence should have been under the first part of Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, which prescribes a maximum of 10 years imprisonment and fine.
• It was contended that the appellant had already served 10 to 12 years in custody, and therefore, the sentence should be reduced to the period already undergone.

Respondent’s Arguments:

• The respondent’s counsel supported the High Court’s decision, arguing that the sentence was appropriate given the grievous nature of the injury and the circumstances of the crime.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court framed the following issue:

1. Whether any case for interference in the quantum of sentence awarded to the appellant is made out.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The court considered the following authorities:

Judgment

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

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

The Court analyzed Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 to determine the appropriate punishment. The Court distinguished Sanjay vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2016(3) SCC 62* stating that the facts were different, and this case did not warrant a similar alteration of the conviction.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Court was primarily influenced by the fact that the appellant caused grievous hurt by firing a gunshot at the victim’s head. The court emphasized the nature of the injury, the intention of the accused, and the circumstances of the crime. The court also noted that the three accused had a common intention to kill the family members and that the appellant had targeted the victim’s head, a vital part of the body.

Logical Reasoning

Judgment

The Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s decision, affirming the life imprisonment sentence. The Court reasoned that the case fell under the second part of Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 because the appellant caused grievous hurt by shooting the victim in the head. The Court considered the nature of the injury, the intention of the accused, and the circumstances of the crime. The Court stated:

“In our view, the two Courts below did not commit any error in exercising their judicial discretion in the light of facts found proved while awarding life imprisonment to the appellant.”

The Court further elaborated:

“It is for the reasons that firstly, the facts of the case squarely fall in the second part of Section 307 IPC; secondly, gunshot injury caused by the appellant to the victim-Shahjad was grievous in nature, thirdly, the bullet injury was caused in the head which was the most delicate and vital part of the body; fourthly, the facts of the case satisfied the ingredients of the first part of Section 307 IPC…”

The Court also noted:

“In our opinion, while sentencing the accused, the Court is required to take into account several factors arising in the case, such as the nature of offence committed, the manner in which it was committed, its gravity, the motive behind the commission of the offence, nature of injuries sustained by the victim, whether the injuries sustained were simple or grievous in nature, weapons used for commission of offence and any other extenuating circumstances if any.”

Key Takeaways

• Life imprisonment can be awarded under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 even if the victim survives, provided grievous hurt has been caused.
• The nature and location of the injury (e.g., gunshot to the head) are significant factors in determining the sentence.
• The court will consider the intention of the accused and the circumstances of the crime, including the use of weapons and the motive.
• The fact that the victim survived does not automatically mean that the sentence should be limited to the first part of Section 307 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 when an accused is convicted under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 for attempt to murder and causes grievous hurt, the court can impose a sentence of life imprisonment even if the victim survives. This judgment reaffirms the existing legal position and clarifies the application of the second part of Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the life imprisonment sentence, emphasizing that the grievous nature of the injury and the circumstances of the crime justified the punishment under the second part of Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The judgment clarifies that the survival of the victim does not preclude a sentence of life imprisonment if grievous hurt is caused during an attempt to murder.