What is 'Attempt to Murder' under Section 307 of Indian Penal Code (IPC)?

 

INTRODUCTION

 

Today, I will talk about the case of Surinder Singh v. State (Union Territory of Chandigarh), Criminal Appeal No. 2373 of 2010, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court discussed Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) that deals with the offence of attempt to murder.

 

S. 307 – BARE PROVISION

 

Section 307 of IPC states that: -

 

“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.”

 

Thus, Section 307 has following ingredients: -

 

a. Intention or knowledge to cause death.

b. Commission of an act in furtherance to such intention. And

c. If hurt is caused in this process, then more severe punishment is prescribed.

 

In order to understand S. 307 in a better manner, let us go through the pertinent observations by the Court.

 

OBSERVATIONS BY THE COURT

 

Firstly, the Court noted that “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. The section 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. Therefore, an accused charged under Section 307 IPC cannot be acquitted merely because the injuries inflicted on the victim were in the nature of a simple hurt.”

 

Secondly, the Court cited the case of State of Madhya Pradesh v. Saleem & Another, (2005) 5 SCC 554, wherein it was observed that to justify a conviction under Section 307, “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.”

 

Thirdly, the Court opined that in relation to S. 307, there are two ingredients that a Court must consider: -

 

a. Whether there was any intention or knowledge on the part of accused to cause death of the victim?

 

b. Such intent or knowledge was followed by some overt act, irrespective of the consequential result as to whether or not any injury is inflicted upon the victim.

 

According to the Court, such intent may be deduced “from the conduct of the accused and surrounding circumstances of the offence, including the nature of weapon used or the nature of injury, if any.”

 

And lastly, the Court also clarified that there is no requirement of ‘motive’ to prove a charge under Section 307 of IPC. In words of the Court, “whilst motive is infallibly a crucial factor, and is a substantial aid for evincing the commission of an offence but the absence thereof is, however, not such a quintessential component which can be construed as fatal to the case of the prosecution, especially when all other factors point towards the guilt of the accused.” Thus, “the absence of motive alone cannot abjure the guilt of” an accused.

 

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION

 

Those were the observations by the Court. In conclusion, following pertinent points emerge: -

 

a. To attract S. 307, intention or knowledge to cause death along with some consequential overt act must be present.

b. Intention could be gathered from the nature of injuries and in absence of injuries, from other circumstances.

c. It is not essential that bodily injury capable of causing death should have been inflicted.

d. The absence of motive would not be sufficient to abjure the guilt of an accused.

 

Thus, I hope that the nature and the scope of Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code is clear by now.