The Indian Penal Code (IPC) stands as the bedrock of India’s legal system, encompassing various offenses and their ramifications. Among its many sections, Sec. 307 IPC holds significant weight due to its treatment of attempted murder, a serious offense with far-reaching legal implications.
Section 307 IPC: definition
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.”
This section delineates the offence of attempting to commit murder. It emphasizes the intent, act, and the potential consequence of causing death. The provision provides for imprisonment up to ten years, along with the possibility of life imprisonment if hurt is caused to any person during the commission of the act.
Explanation:
Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code deals with trying to commit murder. It covers situations where someone does something with the intention or knowledge that, if their action caused death, it would be considered murder. If convicted under this section, the punishment can include imprisonment for up to ten years. If the action causes harm to someone, the punishment can be even more severe, possibly even life imprisonment.
Ingredients :
breaking down the elements of Section 307 according to its definition:
1. Intent or Knowledge: The individual must have a specific intention or knowledge that their actions could result in causing death, intending to commit an act that, if successful, would amount to murder.
2. Act: The law focuses on the actions taken by the individual. Even if the attempt doesn’t lead to death, the act itself forms the basis of the offence. The action must be substantial and must demonstrate a clear attempt to cause fatal harm.
3. Circumstances Leading to Murder: The actions carried out should be in circumstances where, if death were the result of those actions, it would constitute a murder offence.
4. Outcome of the Act: If the act results in causing harm to any person, the severity of the punishment can increase, potentially leading to life imprisonment.
These ingredients are crucial components that collectively define the offense of attempted murder under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code.
‘Attempt’ as per IPC
In the context of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), “attempt” refers to the intentional effort or endeavour made by an individual to commit a specific offence. Section 511 of the IPC addresses “punishment for attempting to commit offences punishable with imprisonment for life or other imprisonment.”
The concept of attempt involves taking steps towards the commission of a particular offence without actually completing it. For an act to be considered an attempt under the IPC:
1. Intent: The individual must have the intention to commit the offence.
2. Action: There must be a direct action or effort towards committing the offence.
Even if the full offence is not completed due to various reasons (intervention, prevention, or failure), an attempt to commit the offence may still be punishable under the law. The punishment for attempt is often less severe than for the completed offence but is based on the seriousness of the intended crime and the actions taken towards its commission.
whether Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) is bailable, cognizable and compoundable?
1. Non-bailable: Section 307 IPC, which deals with attempted murder, is generally considered a non-bailable offence. This means that, in most cases, bail is not a matter of right, and the accused must apply to the court for bail. However, in exceptional circumstances or at the discretion of the court, bail might be granted, especially if the circumstances of the case or the evidence presented suggest a possibility of innocence or if the accused doesn’t pose a threat to society or the investigation.
2. Cognizable: Section 307 IPC is categorised as a cognizable offence. This means that the police have the authority to arrest the accused without a warrant and can initiate an investigation into the offence without a court order. Cognizable offences usually involve serious crimes where immediate action or investigation is necessary, and the police have broader powers to make arrests and conduct inquiries without needing permission from the court.
3. Non-Compoundable: Generally, offences under Section 307 IPC are considered non-compoundable. This means that the case cannot be withdrawn or compromised between the parties involved, including the victim and the accused, without the court’s permission. Attempted murder, being a serious offence against the state and public order, is usually not allowed to be settled privately between the parties involved. The legal proceedings must continue, and any settlement or compromise requires the court’s approval.
It’s important to note that these aspects might vary depending on the specific circumstances of a case, judicial interpretation, and the discretion of the court. In some exceptional situations, courts might grant bail, treat the offence as compoundable, or vary the cognizability based on case specifics or judicial reasoning.
Read More: Section 482 of Cr.PC: Power of the High Court to quash any Complaint or FIR
Punishment: Section 307
Imprisonment: The section provides for imprisonment, which can extend up to ten years.
Fine: Along with imprisonment, the convicted individual may also be liable to pay a fine.
Severity of Injury: Additionally, if hurt is caused to any person during the commission of the act covered under Section 307, the offender could face a higher level of punishment. In such cases, the punishment might include imprisonment for life or a term as previously mentioned (imprisonment for up to ten years along with a fine).
Landmark judgements of Apex court:
Here are a few landmark judgments related to Section 307 of the IPC by the Supreme Court of India:
1. State of Maharashtra v. Balu Govind Kaware (2002):
The Supreme Court in this case emphasized that to establish an offence under Section 307, the intention to commit murder must be clearly established. Mere infliction of injuries might not suffice to prove the intention to cause death unless the circumstances clearly indicate such intent.
2. Ramesh Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh (2001):
This judgement highlighted the importance of the ‘intention’ element in Section 307. It stated that for a conviction under this section, the prosecution needs to establish that the accused had a clear intention to cause the death of the victim.
3. Narayan Chetanram Chaudhary v. State of Maharashtra (2000):
The Supreme Court held that in cases falling under Section 307, it is not necessary for the injury caused to be fatal. Even if the victim survives, the accused can still be convicted under this section if the intent to commit murder is evident.
These landmark judgments set crucial precedents and interpretations regarding the interpretation and application of Section 307 of the IPC, emphasizing the importance of proving intent and the seriousness of the offence of attempted murder.
Latest judgements:
December 2021:
1. Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab (2021):
Punjab and Haryana High Court – The court emphasized that for the application of Section 307, there must be evidence to establish the intention to commit murder beyond reasonable doubt.
2. Shivlal v. State of Rajasthan (2021):
Rajasthan High Court – The court clarified that for a conviction under Section 307, the prosecution must prove that the accused had the intention or knowledge that their act could result in the victim’s death.
3. Manoj v. State of Himachal Pradesh (2021):
Himachal Pradesh High Court – The court ruled that to prove an offence under Section 307, there must be a clear intention to cause death, and the act must be in circumstances that would amount to murder if successful.
2020:
Ajit vs. State of Haryana (2020):
Punjab and Haryana High Court – The court emphasized that to establish an offense under Section 307, there must be clear and cogent evidence to prove the intention of the accused to commit murder.
Mohd. Kalim v. State of Bihar (2020):
Patna High Court – The court ruled that for a conviction under Section 307, it is essential to establish beyond reasonable doubt that the accused had the intention to cause death or had knowledge that their act could result in death.
Balkishan v. State of Rajasthan (2020):
Rajasthan High Court – The court reiterated that the prosecution must establish the accused’s intent to commit murder beyond any doubt for a successful conviction under Section 307 IPC.
2019:
1. Mukesh Kumar v. State of Haryana (2019):
Punjab and Haryana High Court – The court emphasized the importance of proving a clear intention to murder beyond any reasonable doubt for a conviction under Section 307 IPC.
2. Krishna vs. State of Rajasthan (2019):
Rajasthan High Court: The court ruled that the prosecution must establish the accused’s intent or knowledge to commit murder to secure a conviction under Section 307 IPC.
2018:
1. Anil v. State of Haryana (2018):
Punjab and Haryana High Court – The court highlighted the necessity of proving the accused’s intention or knowledge to cause death, stating that mere infliction of injuries might not suffice for a conviction under Section 307 IPC.
2. Ravinder vs. State of Punjab (2018):
Punjab and Haryana High Court – The court reiterated the importance of proving the accused’s intention to commit murder beyond reasonable doubt for a successful conviction under Section 307 IPC.
Please note that for the most detailed and accurate information on these judgments, referring directly to the respective High Court’s websites or legal databases for the judgments themselves would provide comprehensive insight into their interpretations and applications of Section 307 IPC
