Injury On Vital Part Not An Essential Ingredient Of Section 307 IPC (Attempt To Murder): SC [Read Judgment]
"If the assailant acts with the intention or knowledge that such action might cause death, and hurt is caused, then the provisions of Section 307 I.P.C. would be applicable"
There is no requirement for the injury to be on a "vital part" of the body, merely causing 'hurt' is sufficient to attract S. 307 I.P.C, the Supreme Court has held. The bench comprising Justice L. Nageswara Rao and Justice Indu Malhotra observed that, if the assailant acts with the intention or knowledge that such action might cause death, and hurt is caused, then the provisions...
There is no requirement for the injury to be on a "vital part" of the body, merely causing 'hurt' is sufficient to attract S. 307 I.P.C, the Supreme Court has held.
The bench comprising Justice L. Nageswara Rao and Justice Indu Malhotra observed that, if the assailant acts with the intention or knowledge that such action might cause death, and hurt is caused, then the provisions of Section 307 I.P.C. would be applicable.
In State of MP vs. Harjeet Singh, the High court had converted the conviction of the accused from Section 307 to Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code on the ground that the injuries inflicted were on "unimportant parts" of the Complainant's body. The High court' The Accused /Respondents having an intention to commit murder would never cause injuries over such "unimportant" parts of the body, the High court had observed.
Referring to the medical report, the Apex court bench, in the appeal filed by the state, observed that the finding of the High Court that the stab wound on the chest remained upto the depth of the cavity over left side of the chest and the lungs were not affected, is factually incorrect, and contrary to the medical record. It said:
"Stabbing a person with a knife, near his vital organs would in most circumstances lead to the death of the victim, thereby falling squarely within the meaning of Section 307."
The bench further said that the Section 307 uses the term "hurt" which has been explained in Section 319, I.P.C.; and not "grievous hurt" within the meaning of Section 320 I.P.C. If a person causes hurt with the intention or knowledge that he may cause death, it would attract Section 307, the court added. It further said:
"If the assailant acts with the intention or knowledge that such action might cause death, and hurt is caused, then the provisions of Section 307 I.P.C. would be applicable. There is no requirement for the injury to be on a "vital part" of the body, merely causing 'hurt' is sufficient to attract S. 307 I.P.C"
Taking into account other evidence on record, the bench set aside the High court judgment and restored the conviction recorded by the Trial court.
Read Judgment