LI Network
Published on: November 30, 2023 at 15:36 IST
The Supreme Court, set aside a conviction for attempted murder, highlighting two crucial factors: the absence of repeated or severe blows and the simple nature of injuries inflicted.
The Court, while ruling out the conviction under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), emphasized that sustaining such a conviction required evidence of severe blows or life-threatening injuries.
The court cited the case of Jage Ram v State of Haryana (2015) which established that the intention of the accused could be inferred from the actual injury and surrounding circumstances.
The nature of the weapon used and the severity of the blows inflicted were crucial factors in determining intent.
Section 307 of the IPC pertains to the punishment for an attempt to murder, carrying a maximum sentence of ten years or life imprisonment if the victim is injured.
In this particular case, the High Court of Madras had upheld the accused’s conviction under Section 307, reducing the sentence from ten to five years of rigorous imprisonment.
The Supreme Court, composed of Justices Vikram Nath and Ahsanuddin Amanullah, overturned the conviction, noting that the injuries sustained were simple, and the accused would have had the opportunity to cause more harm if their intent was to kill.
The prosecution claimed a history of enmity between the victim and the accused, stemming from a lane dispute, leading to a verbal altercation and a conspiracy to harm the victim.
The accused attacked both the victim and his mother, resulting in injuries to the victim’s right shoulder and left thumb, and a simple injury to the mother’s back.
The appellants argued against the Section 307 conviction, asserting that the injuries were simple, and if the intention was murder, the accused, armed with knives, would have succeeded.
The Supreme Court modified the conviction to Sections 323 (voluntarily causing hurt) and 324 (voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons) of the IPC. The court reduced the sentence to the period already served.
CASE TITLE: SIVAMANI AND ANR. V. STATE REPRESENTED BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 3619 OF 2023
