SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Bipin Bihari
Vs
State of Madhya Pradesh
Appeal (Crl.) 986 of 2006 (Arising Out of Slp (Crl.) No. 1028/2006)
(Arijit Pasayat and L. S. Panta, JJ)
20.09.2006
ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.
Leave granted.
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.
The factual background in a nutshell is as under:
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.
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.
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 Ex.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.
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.
In response, learned counsel for the respondent-State submitted that the High
Court's judgment does not suffer from any infirmity to warrant interference.
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."
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.
In Sarju Prasad v. State of Bihar 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.
The above position was highlighted in State of Maharashtra v. Balram Bama Patil
and Ors. , Girija Shankar v. State of U.P. and Vasant Vithu Jadhav
v. State of Maharashtra 2004 AIR(SCW) 1523 and Bappa @ Bapu v. State of
Maharashtra and Anr. . The conviction as done is in order.
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.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.