The Supreme Court has recently observed that in cases of 'attempt to murder' (Sec- 307 IPC), the intention has to be ascertained from the type of weapon used, part of the body chosen for assault and the nature of the injury caused.

The Bench comprising of Justice MR Shah and Justice AS Bopanna uphled the conviction of petitioner-accused as  determined by the Jharkhand High Court.

Brief Facts of Case

The accused was aggrieved by judgement of Jharkhand High Court which upheld his conviction for the offences under Section 307 read with Section 34 of the IPC.

His only contention was that, it was a case of single blow/injury and thus at the most the case may fall under Section 323 of the IPC. Therefore, the Lower Courts have erred in convicting him under Section 307 IPC.

Supreme Court Observation 

The Court upon taking note of the evidence on record, observed on the outset 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 the injury was grievous. The injury was caused by a sharp cutting weapon.

The Court said:

"Thus, deadly weapons have been used and the injuries are found to be grievous in nature. As the deadly weapon has been used causing the injury near the chest and stomach which can be said to be on vital part of the body, the appellants have been rightly convicted for the offence under Section 307 read with Section 34 of the IPC."

 The Court further cited SC Judgement in Mahesh Balmiki @ Munna Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, 1999 Latest Caselaw 302 SC in which it was held that nature of injury will be a vital factor in deciding cases of single blow injury.

"there is no principle that in all cases of a single blow Section 302 Indian Penal Code is not attracted. A single blow may, in some cases, entail conviction Under Section 302 Indian Penal Code, in some cases Under Section 304 Indian Penal Code and in some other cases Under Section 326 Indian Penal Code. The question with regard to the nature of offence has to be determined on the facts and in the circumstances of each case. The nature of the injury, whether it is on the vital or non-vital part of the body, the weapon used, the circumstances in which the injury is caused and the manner in which the injury is inflicted are all relevant factors which may go to determine the required intention or knowledge of the offender and the offence committed by him."

Relying on above ruling, the Court stated that the case in hand isn't that the offence occurred out of a sudden quarrel and that the blow was stuck in the heat of the moment.

Upholding the conviction granted by Lower Courts, the Court said:

"As observed and held by this Court in catena of decisions 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. Considering the case on hand on the aforesaid principles, when the deadly weapon – dagger has been used, there was a stab injury on the stomach and near the chest which can be said to be on the vital part of the body and the nature of injuries caused, it is rightly held that the appellants have committed the offence under Section 307 IPC."

The Court thus dismissed the accused's plea accordingly.

Read Judgement Here:

Share this Document :

Picture Source :

 
Sheetal Joon- Content Editor with LatestLaws