Holding

A conviction under Section 307 IPC is proper if the accused shows intent coupled with an overt act, irrespective of whether the injury caused is capable of causing death, and the fine imposed must be reasonable.

Summary

The appellant, Bipin Bihari, was convicted under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code for attempting to murder the complainant after firing a gun that injured the complainant's calf. The trial court sentenced him to life imprisonment and a fine; the High Court reduced the imprisonment to two years but increased the fine to Rs.30,000. The appellant challenged the conviction, arguing that Section 307 requires an injury capable of causing death and that the fine was excessive. The Supreme Court held that a conviction under Section 307 is valid if there is intent coupled with an overt act, even when the injury is not fatal. It affirmed the conviction and the two‑year imprisonment as not harsh, but reduced the fine to Rs.15,000 as being excessive. The Court ordered the fine to be paid within six months, with a default custodial sentence if unpaid. The appeal was consequently disposed of.

Issues considered

Whether a conviction under Section 307 IPC is justified when the injury inflicted is not capable of causing death.
Whether the fine imposed by the High Court is excessive and warrants reduction.

Legislation cited

Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 307

Subjects

attempt to murderSection 307 IPCintent and overt actinjury not fatalfine reductionsentencing

Judgment

...
. ;.

BIPIN .BIHARI
.V.
··.STATE OF M. P•.... ·

SEPTEMBER 20; ioo6
···•.
.. -....
[ARIJIT
.· PASA- YAT AND .LOKESHWAR
··-: '. . SINGH .PANTA;
. . . JJ.)
. . .:
-

Penal Code,
'
I 860;
- ..S.307: .
'•

.. .· Acc~sed r~straini~g ;ister-mc1mv ofco~plainani fro',; cuuing the crops-
. C · C~mplainant intervene~A~cused fired giiii injitring the c~mplaina~t~Trial
. Court found aciwed guiltY of committing crime under Section. 307 and .
· . sentenced him ilnpris;,,,ment for life anJ also imposedfine..,.Conviction affirmed ·
· by HighCourlreduCing the sentence hut increasing the fine to Rs.30,0001-·-.
On appeal; Held: For eo1JVlction under Section 307, inflictio~ of bodily injury.
D .capableof causing death is not e~sential-lntent to com ihe crime coupied wit
1i•ith soine _ol'er{act in execution thereof is sufficient to justify ihe cOnviction-·
lnttntion could be .ascertained from nature of injury inflicted and also other .
Q11endini circ;un1staiices-:-ln the faCts and CircumstanCes ofthe case~·custOdial
sentence oftwa years ds imposed~annoi be.termed lo beharsh considering .
. the nature of injury so inflicted by the accuse~However, the fi~e imposed
·E appears to. be on higher side, hence reduced to Rs,15,0001-Sentencing.
. . . On thefaieful day,"the complainant was gl'a~ing his ox in the.field
and.his sister~in-law was cutting the. crops. On hearing her cry for help,
... ·the complainant rushed towards her and found ihat the accused/appellant
p· was restraining his sister-in-law from cutting the crops and he was.
carrying a gun. When the complainant intervened, he was threatened of
dire consequences by the accused. Thereafter, he fired the gun injuring
·the complainant.· At thatjuncture, ·som~ persons arrived at the· spot. On
seeing them, the accused fled away.

G The incident was reported at the police station by the injured
complainant/victim. The police, after completing the .investigation,
submitted the charge-sheet in the Court. The trial Court found the accused
guilty of committing the crime under Section· 307 IPC and convicted and
sentenced him to imprisonment for l[f<. The con.viction was affirmed by·
the High Court in appeal but the sentence. was ·reduced to two years and
H 412
BIPIN BIHARI v. STATEOFM.P. 413
fine was increased to Rs.J0,000/-. Hence the present appeaL · A
Appellant contended that the High Court was not-justified in-holding· ·
that the- tonviCtion hast;. be made in terms of Section 307 IPC; and that
the fine as imposed is harsh and unreasonable•.

Disposing of the appeal, the.Court B
HELD: I.I. It is sufficient to ju~tify a co~victi~n under Section 307
if there is present an intent coupled with some overt act in execution
thereof. It is noi 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 C
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 lo see whether
the act, irrespective of its result, was done with the intention or knowledge D
and under circumstances mentioned in the Section. An attempt in order
to be criminal need not be the penultimate act. (415-F-G(

. Sarju Prasad v. Slale of Bihar, AIR (1965) SC 843; Stale of
Maharashtra v. Balram Barna Patil and Ors., (1983( 2 SCC 28; Girija Shankar
v. State of U.f., JT (2004) 2 SC 140; Vasanl Vithu Jadhav v. State of E
Maharashlra, (2004) AIR SCW 1523 and Bappa @ Bapu v. State of
Maharashtra & Anr., (2004( 6 SCC 485, relied on•.

1.2. The imprisonment cannot be termed to be 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/-. · F
. ' . . (416-C-D(

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No, 986
of2006. '
.
, From the final Judgment and Order dated 3.12.2004 of the High Court G
of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur in Criminal Appeal No. 87912004.

Ram_esh Chandra Pandey for the Appellant.
. -·
- Dr. N.M. Ghatate and C.D. Singh for the.Respondent.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by H
414. ·SUPREME COURrREPORTS [2006] SUPP. 6 S.C.R.

A ARIJITPASAYAT, J. Leave granted.

' Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment rendered by a Division
Bench of the Madhya Pradesh lligh 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. llowever, the custodial •
B ·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:
. Thecustodfafsenteoce of tv•o years was ;,;,posed. It was held that in ·case the
' fine is not paid wiihin' four monlhs."the accused shall undergo further rigorous
imprisonmeni for fJ~r years. The fine amount o~ deposit was t~ be paid as
.C compensation to
•r . -
victim.
'···· .- ...
' 'foe
!-
' '
-
' ' ' .' ' ',/ .
., .'

The fa~tual background i~ a nutsheli is as under; · ·

Complainant Mahabali on .18.11.2002 at about 5.00 p.m. was grazing.
his ox in his field. llis sister-in-law Jamuni Bai was· cutting the crop. On
D hearing her cry· for help, the complainant rushed towards her and found that
the appellant had entered into an altercation with her. Ile found that the
appellant ~as carrying a gun· and v.·as restraining his sister-in-la\V frorri cutting
the crop. Qn seeing the complainant, appellant brandished the gun and gave
threat of d.ire consequences. Despite the threat, the complainant caught hold
- --- . . - - /
of the gun of appellant as .a result of which appellant hurled abuses and
E threatened to kill him. Thereafter the accused fired the gun and the bullet·
struck the right calf of the complainant, as a consequence ofwhich 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,
F Lav' Kush, Ram Kripal and' Moti.lal arrived at. the 'spot. On seeing these
person~. the 'appellant fled aw~y arid left the 'gun· at the spot. The incident was
witnessed by sister-in-law of complainant, who had testified that the appellant
was making _threatenirig utterances. .

The incident was reported at the police station by the injured
G complainant. Mahabali. On the basis of FIR lodged by the complainant, the
criminal la\v was set in motion. The investigating agency sent the ~omplainant
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 fiom where it was received
by the trial Court for trial.
. .J;
BIPINBIHARI ... STATEOFM.P; (P_~SAYAT,J.) 415

The learned trial· Judge framed charge for commission of offence A
punishable under Section 307 IPC. The appellant denied the indictment and
requested for trial. The prosecution examined 12 witnesses and placed Ex.P-
l to P-19 documents on record. As noted above, the trial Court found the
accused guilty, convicied and sentenced him. High Couri in appeal, as noted
above, maintained the conviction; but modified the sentence.
-- ;

In support of the appeal, learned counsel fo~ the accused· appellani
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
unreaso~able. · .

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:

..A/tempt to murder-Whoever does any act with such intention or D
: knowledge, and under such circumstances that, if he by that act caused
l 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 ac~ the offender shall be liable either to imprisonment E
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 F
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 ac.tual 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 · G
Section .. An attempt in order to be criminal need not be the"'i)e~ultimate 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, AIR ( 1965) S.C 843 it was observed H
416 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2006) SUPP•. 6 S.C.R.

A 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 th~· act out of the
purview of Section 307 IPC.

The above po;ition was highlighted in State of Maharashtra v. Bairam
Bama Patil and Ors., [1983) 2 SCC 28, Girija Shankar v. Stat~ of U.P., JT •
. B (2004) 2 SC 140 and Vasant Vithu JadhaV v. State ofM~harashtra, ·(2004)
AIR SCW 1523; Bappa @ Bapu v. State of Maharashtra and Anr.• · [2004] .
. 6 sec 485. The conviction as done is in order. '

Coming to the custodial sentence imposed, the imprisonment cannot be
C termed to be in any way harsh considering the nature-·ofthe 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 of6
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.

s.j<.s. Appeal disposed of.

/

·.;I

:_.

;.-._