Bipin Bihari Vs. State of M.P.
EmailAppeal: Criminal Appeal No. 986 of 2006
(Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 1028/2006)
(From the final Judgment and Order dated 3/12/2004 of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur in Criminal Appeal No. 879/2004)
(Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 1028/2006)
(From the final Judgment and Order dated 3/12/2004 of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur in Criminal Appeal No. 879/2004)
Petitioner: Bipin Bihari
Respondent: State of M.P.
Apeal: Criminal Appeal No. 986 of 2006
(Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 1028/2006)
(From the final Judgment and Order dated 3/12/2004 of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur in Criminal Appeal No. 879/2004)
(Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 1028/2006)
(From the final Judgment and Order dated 3/12/2004 of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur in Criminal Appeal No. 879/2004)
Judges: Arijit Pasayat & Lokeshwar Singh Panta, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Sep 20, 2006
Appearances:
Mr. Ramesh Chandra Pandey, Advocate (A.C.), for the Appellant.
Dr. N.M. Ghatate, Senior Advocate, Mr. C.D. Singh, Advocate with him for the Respondent.
Dr. N.M. Ghatate, Senior Advocate, Mr. C.D. Singh, Advocate with him for the Respondent.
Head Note:
CRIMINAL LAWS
Indian Penal Code, 1860
Section 307 – Attempt to murder – Ingredients of the offence -Whether there should be a bodily injury capable of causing death – Appellant restraining the sister-in-law of the complainant from cutting grass – Verbal disputes arising – Complainant intervening – Appellant who was armed with a gun first threatening to shoot and then firing – In spite of injury complainant grappling with the appellant and preventing him from loading the gun again – Incident witnessed by the sister-in-law of the complainant – Trial Court convicting the appellant under Section 307 and imposing custodial sentence of imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 5000 – High Court while upholding the conviction reducing the custodial sentence to 2 years imprisonment and enhancing the fine to Rs. 30,000 – Validity. Held that an attempt in order to be criminal need not be the penultimate act and it is sufficient if there is present an intent coupled with some overt act in execution thereof. Intent coupled with some overt act would be sufficient to justify conviction under Section 307. Custodial sentence of two years cannot be considered to be harsh considering the nature of the injury. However fine reduced to Rs. 15,000 to be paid within six months. [Paras 7 to 10]
Indian Penal Code, 1860
Section 307 – Attempt to murder – Ingredients of the offence -Whether there should be a bodily injury capable of causing death – Appellant restraining the sister-in-law of the complainant from cutting grass – Verbal disputes arising – Complainant intervening – Appellant who was armed with a gun first threatening to shoot and then firing – In spite of injury complainant grappling with the appellant and preventing him from loading the gun again – Incident witnessed by the sister-in-law of the complainant – Trial Court convicting the appellant under Section 307 and imposing custodial sentence of imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 5000 – High Court while upholding the conviction reducing the custodial sentence to 2 years imprisonment and enhancing the fine to Rs. 30,000 – Validity. Held that an attempt in order to be criminal need not be the penultimate act and it is sufficient if there is present an intent coupled with some overt act in execution thereof. Intent coupled with some overt act would be sufficient to justify conviction under Section 307. Custodial sentence of two years cannot be considered to be harsh considering the nature of the injury. However fine reduced to Rs. 15,000 to be paid within six months. [Paras 7 to 10]
Cases Reffered:
1. Girija Shankar v. State of U.P. [JT 2004 (2) SC 140] (Para 9)
2. Bappa @ Bapu v. State of Maharashtra and Anr. [JT 2004 (6) SC 285] (Para 9)
3. Vasant Vithu Jadhav v. State of Maharashtra [JT 2004 (3) SC 267] (Para 9)
4. State of Maharashtra v. Balram Bama Patil and Ors. [1983 (2) SCC 28] (Para 9)
5. Sarju Prasad v. State of Bihar [AIR 1965 SC 843] (Para 8)
2. Bappa @ Bapu v. State of Maharashtra and Anr. [JT 2004 (6) SC 285] (Para 9)
3. Vasant Vithu Jadhav v. State of Maharashtra [JT 2004 (3) SC 267] (Para 9)
4. State of Maharashtra v. Balram Bama Patil and Ors. [1983 (2) SCC 28] (Para 9)
5. Sarju Prasad v. State of Bihar [AIR 1965 SC 843] (Para 8)
JUDGEMENT:
ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment rendered by a Division Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court, Jabalpur Bench confirming the conviction of the appellant in terms of Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the ‘IPC’) as done by the trial court. However, the custodial sentence of imprisonment for life imposed was reduced, quantum of fine was increased from Rs.5,000/- to Rs.30,000/- and in default sentence was stipulated. The custodial sentence of two years was imposed. It was held that in case the fine is not paid within four months, the accused shall undergo further rigorous imprisonment for four years. The fine amount on deposit was to be paid as compensation to the victim.
3. The factual background in a nutshell is as under:
3.1. Complainant Mahabali on 18.11.2002 at about 5.00 p.m. was grazing his ox in his field. His sister-in-law Jamuni Bai was cutting the crop. On hearing her cry for help, the complainant rushed towards her and found that the appellant had entered into an altercation with her. He found that the appellant was carrying a gun and was restraining his sister-in-law from cutting the crop. On seeing the complainant, appellant brandished the gun and gave threat of dire consequences. Despite the threat, the complainant caught hold of the gun of appellant as a result of which appellant hurled abuses and threatened to kill him. Thereafter the accused fired the gun and the bullet struck the right calf of the complainant, as a consequence of which the flesh of that region was ripped open. In spite of the aforesaid injury complainant continued to grapple with the appellant, as he wanted to load the gun again. But he failed because complainant was grappling with him. At that juncture, Lav Kush, Ram Kripal and Motilal arrived at the spot. On seeing these persons, the appellant fled away and left the gun at the spot. The incident was witnessed by sister-in-law of complainant, who had testified that the appellant was making threatening utterances.
3.2. The incident was reported at the police station by the injured complainant, Mahabali. On the basis of FIR lodged by the complainant, the criminal law was set in motion. The investigating agency sent the complainant for medical examination; recorded the statements of witnesses; prepared the spot map; seized necessary articles and after completing the investigation submitted the charge-sheet in the concerned court from where it was received by the trial court for trial.
3.3. The learned trial Judge framed charge for commission of offence punishable under Section 307 IPC. The appellant denied the indictment and requested for trial. The prosecution examined 12 witnesses and placed exhibits P-1 to P-19 documents on record. As noted above, the trial court found the accused guilty, convicted and sentenced him. High Court in appeal, as noted above, maintained the conviction, but modified the sentence.
4. In support of the appeal, learned counsel for the accused appellant submitted that the High Court was not justified in holding that the conviction has to be made in terms of Section 307 IPC. The fine as imposed is harsh and unreasonable.
5. In response, learned counsel for the respondent-State submitted that the High Court’s judgment does not suffer from any infirmity to warrant interference.
6. Section 307 IPC reads as follows:
‘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.’
7. It is sufficient to justify a conviction under Section 307 if there is present an intent coupled with some overt act in execution thereof. It is not essential that bodily injury capable of causing death should have been inflicted. Although the nature of injury actually caused may often give considerable assistance in coming to a finding as to the intention of the accused, such intention may also be deduced from other circumstances, and may even, in some cases, be ascertained without any reference at all to actual wounds. The sections makes a distinction between the act of the accused and its result, if any. The court has to see whether the act, irrespective of its result, was done with the intention or knowledge and under circumstances mentioned in the section. An attempt in order to be criminal need not be the penultimate act. It is sufficient in law, if there is present an intent coupled with some overt act in execution thereof.
8. In Sarju Prasad v. State of Bihar1 it was observed that the mere fact that the injury actually inflicted by the accused did not cut any vital organ of the victim, is not itself sufficient to take the act out of the purview of Section 307 IPC.
9. The above position was highlighted in State of Maharashtra v. Balram Bama Patil and Ors.1, Girija Shankar v. State of U.P.2 and Vasant Vithu Jadhav v. State of Maharashtra3 and Bappa @ Bapu v. State of Maharashtra and Anr.4. The conviction as done is in order.
10. Coming to the custodial sentence imposed, the imprisonment cannot be termed to be in any way harsh considering the nature of the injury inflicted by the accused on the victim. However, the fine appears to be on higher side. The same is reduced to Rs.15,000/- and shall be paid within a period of 6 months. In case it is not paid, default custodial sentence would be one and a half years’ imprisonment. If the payment is made, an amount of Rs.10,000/- shall be paid to the victim.
11. The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
1. Leave granted.
2. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment rendered by a Division Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court, Jabalpur Bench confirming the conviction of the appellant in terms of Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the ‘IPC’) as done by the trial court. However, the custodial sentence of imprisonment for life imposed was reduced, quantum of fine was increased from Rs.5,000/- to Rs.30,000/- and in default sentence was stipulated. The custodial sentence of two years was imposed. It was held that in case the fine is not paid within four months, the accused shall undergo further rigorous imprisonment for four years. The fine amount on deposit was to be paid as compensation to the victim.
3. The factual background in a nutshell is as under:
3.1. Complainant Mahabali on 18.11.2002 at about 5.00 p.m. was grazing his ox in his field. His sister-in-law Jamuni Bai was cutting the crop. On hearing her cry for help, the complainant rushed towards her and found that the appellant had entered into an altercation with her. He found that the appellant was carrying a gun and was restraining his sister-in-law from cutting the crop. On seeing the complainant, appellant brandished the gun and gave threat of dire consequences. Despite the threat, the complainant caught hold of the gun of appellant as a result of which appellant hurled abuses and threatened to kill him. Thereafter the accused fired the gun and the bullet struck the right calf of the complainant, as a consequence of which the flesh of that region was ripped open. In spite of the aforesaid injury complainant continued to grapple with the appellant, as he wanted to load the gun again. But he failed because complainant was grappling with him. At that juncture, Lav Kush, Ram Kripal and Motilal arrived at the spot. On seeing these persons, the appellant fled away and left the gun at the spot. The incident was witnessed by sister-in-law of complainant, who had testified that the appellant was making threatening utterances.
3.2. The incident was reported at the police station by the injured complainant, Mahabali. On the basis of FIR lodged by the complainant, the criminal law was set in motion. The investigating agency sent the complainant for medical examination; recorded the statements of witnesses; prepared the spot map; seized necessary articles and after completing the investigation submitted the charge-sheet in the concerned court from where it was received by the trial court for trial.
3.3. The learned trial Judge framed charge for commission of offence punishable under Section 307 IPC. The appellant denied the indictment and requested for trial. The prosecution examined 12 witnesses and placed exhibits P-1 to P-19 documents on record. As noted above, the trial court found the accused guilty, convicted and sentenced him. High Court in appeal, as noted above, maintained the conviction, but modified the sentence.
4. In support of the appeal, learned counsel for the accused appellant submitted that the High Court was not justified in holding that the conviction has to be made in terms of Section 307 IPC. The fine as imposed is harsh and unreasonable.
5. In response, learned counsel for the respondent-State submitted that the High Court’s judgment does not suffer from any infirmity to warrant interference.
6. Section 307 IPC reads as follows:
‘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.’
7. It is sufficient to justify a conviction under Section 307 if there is present an intent coupled with some overt act in execution thereof. It is not essential that bodily injury capable of causing death should have been inflicted. Although the nature of injury actually caused may often give considerable assistance in coming to a finding as to the intention of the accused, such intention may also be deduced from other circumstances, and may even, in some cases, be ascertained without any reference at all to actual wounds. The sections makes a distinction between the act of the accused and its result, if any. The court has to see whether the act, irrespective of its result, was done with the intention or knowledge and under circumstances mentioned in the section. An attempt in order to be criminal need not be the penultimate act. It is sufficient in law, if there is present an intent coupled with some overt act in execution thereof.
8. In Sarju Prasad v. State of Bihar1 it was observed that the mere fact that the injury actually inflicted by the accused did not cut any vital organ of the victim, is not itself sufficient to take the act out of the purview of Section 307 IPC.
9. The above position was highlighted in State of Maharashtra v. Balram Bama Patil and Ors.1, Girija Shankar v. State of U.P.2 and Vasant Vithu Jadhav v. State of Maharashtra3 and Bappa @ Bapu v. State of Maharashtra and Anr.4. The conviction as done is in order.
10. Coming to the custodial sentence imposed, the imprisonment cannot be termed to be in any way harsh considering the nature of the injury inflicted by the accused on the victim. However, the fine appears to be on higher side. The same is reduced to Rs.15,000/- and shall be paid within a period of 6 months. In case it is not paid, default custodial sentence would be one and a half years’ imprisonment. If the payment is made, an amount of Rs.10,000/- shall be paid to the victim.
11. The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
