S. 307 IPC | 'Simple Injuries, No Repeated Or Severe Blows' : Supreme Court Overturns Conviction For Attempt To Murder

The Supreme Court, on November 28), while setting aside the conviction under attempt to murder, gave weightage to two factors. Firstly, the Court noted that there were no repeated or severe blows caused. Secondly, injuries on victims were simple in nature.

“Admittedly, there is no allegation of repeated or severe blows having been inflicted. Even the injuries on PW1 and PW2 have been found to be simple in nature, which is an additional point in the appellants’ favour….As such, the conviction under Section 307, IPC is unsustainable.”

Imperatively, while doing so, the Court also relied upon several landmark cases, including Jage Ram v State of Haryana (2015) 11 SCC 366. Therein, the Top Court had observed that while grievous or life-threatening injury was not necessary to maintain a conviction under Section 307, IPC, ‘The intention of the accused can be ascertained from the actual injury if any, as well as from surrounding circumstances. Among other things, the nature of the weapon used, and the severity of the blows inflicted can be considered to infer intent.’

Pertinently, Section 307 of the IPC prescribes punishment for attempt to murder. The punishment can extend up to 10 years and in case the victim is hurt, then the maximum punishment is imprisonment for life.

The Division Bench, comprising Justices Vikram Nath and Ahsanuddin Amanullah, made these observations while considering a criminal appeal wherein the High Court of Madras had confirmed the conviction of the accused under Section 307 of the IPC; however, the sentence of ten years rigorous imprisonment, which the trial court awarded was reduced to five years rigorous imprisonment.

The prosecution's stance was such that there was previous enmity between the victim and the accused regarding the lane dispute. This also resulted in a wordy altercation between them. Pursuance to this, accused persons hatched the conspiracy to do away with the life of the victim. This led to the accused persons attacking not only a victim but also his mother. Due to this, the victim suffered injuries on his right shoulder and left thumb, while his mother sustained simple injury on her back.

It may be noted that though the FIR was registered against five accused persons, the Trial Court convicted two accused persons, the present appellants.

In the instant appeal, the appellants objected to the conviction under Section 307, IPC, primarily because the injuries were simple. Moreover, it was also submitted that had the appellants come with the motive to kill victims; they would have easily done so because they were armed with knives.

Apart from this, it was also asserted that while the charge under Sections 323 (Punishment for voluntarily causing hurt) and 324 (Voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons or means) of the IPC was justified, under Section 307, IPC it was not.

Per contra, the State had argued that the fact that appellants were armed with knives (one each) clearly indicated that their intention to kill.

After hearing both sides, the Apex Court made the aforesaid observations after examining Section 307. Apart from that, the Court was also of the view that only offences under Sections 323 and 324 of the IPC can be made out. Thus, the Court rendered the conviction under Section 307 as unsustainable and passed the following order:

“In the background of the discussions made hereinabove and on taking an overall view, the Impugned Judgment is varied only to the extent that the conviction of the appellants stands modified to that under Sections 323 and 324 of the IPC and the sentence imposed is also reduced to the period already undergone.”

Case Title: SIVAMANI AND ANR. V. STATE REPRESENTED BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 3619 OF 2023

Citation : 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 1024

Click Here To Read/Download Judgment