Click the Play button to listen to article

The Supreme Court has held that the grievousness of the injuries sustained to an injured victim is not a necessary ingredient to attract an offence of an attempt to murder under Section 307 IPC.

“We are of the opinion that the grievousness of the injuries or the possibility of injury which could have led to death, is not a necessary ingredient to attract Section 307.”, observed a bench of Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice K. Vinod Chandran, while dismissing a plea filed by a victim's brother who sought to add Section 307 IPC at a later stage against the accused after the trial had significantly progressed.

The petitioner's case was that initially, the police had registered the FIR under Section 307 and only on the examination by the Medical Board, as requested by the accused, Section 307 was deleted.

The Magistrate's decision to dismiss the petitioner's application seeking an alteration of charge to Section 307 IPC, amongst other charges under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 325, 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), led him to file a revision before the Sessions Court, which also resulted a same fate.

The High Court's decision refusing to interfering with the trial courts findings, led to filing of a special leave petition before the Supreme Court by the victim's brother.

The main thrust of the petitioner's submission was about the grievousness of the injury suffered by the victim in an alleged assault caused by the accused, which was sufficient to cause death to the victim.

Dismissing the plea, the Supreme Court observed that an offence of an attempt to murder cannot be attracted merely because the injury caused to the victim was grievous. The Court clarified that hurt, grievous or simple, is not a precondition to attract Section 307, but, if there is a hurt, be it simple or grievous, and the act causing such hurt is with the intention or knowledge that such act could have caused death, then only would Section 307 IPC would be invoked.

“…to justify the conviction under Section 307, it would be sufficient if there is intent coupled with some overt act in execution thereof. It is not essential that there should be a bodily injury capable of causing death or even an injury in the nature of simple hurt.”, the Court referenced its 2009 judgment of State of Madhya Pradesh v. Kashiram and Others.

In a nutshell, notwithstanding the nature of the injury caused, the only prerequisite for attracting Section 307 IPC is that the injury should be inflicted with the intention to kill or knowledge that death will occur.

Since, the victim nor the petitioner have raised the aspect of intention or knowledge at the initial stage, the Court said that raising such grounds at a later stage was impermissible.

“No such case of an intention or knowledge as would attract Section 307 having been raised at the initial stage or at the stage of cognizance or when the evidence was being led; which the investigation also did not detect, the application made at the later stage, cannot be entertained and hence, the finding leading to rejection of incorporation of Section 307, is justified.”, the Court said.

Accordingly, the petition was dismissed.

Cause Title: Surender Kumar Versus State of Haryana & Ors.

Click here to download order

Appearance:

For Petitioner(s) :Mr. Raghav Nagpal, Adv. Mr. Siddharth Jain, AOR

For Respondent(s) :Mr. Raj Singh Rana, A.A.G. Mr. Samar Vijay Singh, AOR Ms. Sabarni Som, Adv. Mr. Aman Dev Sharma, Adv. Mr. Karan Kapoor, Adv. Mr. Manik Kapoor, Adv. Mr. Shrey Kapoor, AOR

Tags: