Holding

Injury to the victim is not a prerequisite; intention or knowledge to commit murder and an act towards that end suffice for conviction under the first part of Section 307 IPC.

Summary

On 3 February 1994, the informant Prakash Chandra Yadav and a pillion rider were attacked by the accused who hurled bombs at them and later pursued them with a licensed gun. Although one bomb exploded, the informant sustained no injury. The trial court convicted the accused under Section 307 (attempt to murder) and Section 109B of the Indian Penal Code, acquitting them of charges under the Explosive Substances Act for lack of sanction. The High Court reversed the convictions, holding that the absence of injury meant no attempt to murder. On appeal, the Supreme Court held that injury is not a prerequisite for conviction under the first part of Section 307; the essential ingredients are the accused's intention or knowledge to commit murder and an act towards that end. Relying on Parsuram Pandey v. State of Bihar, the Court set aside the High Court judgment and remitted the matter for fresh consideration, allowing the appeal.

Issues considered

Whether the receipt of injury by the victim is a prerequisite for conviction under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code.
What are the essential ingredients required to constitute the offence of attempt to murder under Section 307.

Legislation cited

Explosive Substances Acts. 3, s. 4
Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 109B, s. 307, s. 334

Subjects

attempt to murderSection 307 IPCintentionknowledgeinjury not requiredcriminal appealSupreme Court of IndiaExplosive Substances Act

Judgment

+

_J PRAKASHCHANDRAYADAV A
v.
STATE OF BIHAR AND ORS.

OCTOBER 12, 2007
B
[S.B. SINHA AND HARJIT SINGH BEDI, JJ.]

Penal Code, 1860; Ss. 109 Band 307/Explosive Substance Act;
_.,, Ss. 3 and 4:
Attempt to murder-Accused hurled bomb towards victim and ' C
other with the intention to kill them-FJR.-lnvestigation-Trial
Court found accused persons guilty ofcommitting offence punishable
u/s.307/109B !PC but acquitting them from charges ulss.3 and 4 of
the Explosive Substances Act-Dismissing Revision Petition filed by
the-victim. High Court allowed the appeal ofthe accused-On appeal, D
Held: Injury on the part of the victim is not a pre-requisite for
~ convicting the accused uls.307 !PC-However, intention and,
knowledge are the necessary ingredients for attracting Section 307
t • !PC-Applying the legal principles/provisions u/s. 307 !PC to the facts
ofthe present case, judgment ofthe High Court cannot be sustained- E
Hence, the matter remitted to High Court for consideration afresh.

On 3.2.1994, when the informant was returning on his
motorcycle along with PW7, who was sitting on the back seat,
accused as also one unknown person, were standing on the road. The • F
• accused ordered to kill the informant whereupon the co-accused
"( took out a bomb from his bag and hurled the same towards them.
t , The bomb, however, did not explode. Another bomb was hurled by
the accused towards the informant. It exploded but the informant
did not sustain any injury. Several persons assembled at the spot
G
whereupon, the accused allegedly chased them with his licensed gun.
The incident was witnessed by several witnesses. Besides the victim,1

the prosecution examined PW-3, brother of the informant, PW-4,
-·f
cousin of the informant, PW-2, PW-5, father of the informant and
231 H
232 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 11 S.C.R.

\-. I
A PW-7, PW-9, Assistant Director, Regional Forensic Science
Laboratory. Motive for commission of the offence is said to be rivalry
inter se between the parties in regard to grant ofrailway contract(s).
Trial Court found the accused guilty for commission of an offence
under Section 307/109B of the Indian Penal Code but acquitted them
B from the charges under Sections 3 and 4 of the Explosive Substance
Act on the ground that no sanction from the appropriate authority
had been obtained therefor. Accused was convicted under Section
307 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for five years and co-accused was convicted under
c Section 307/109 IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for three years. An appeal was preferred by the
convicts before the High Court. The first informant also filed a
criminal revision application against the judgment and order of the
trial Court, which was allowed by the High Court dismissing the
D appeals filed by the convicts. Hence the present appeal.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD:l.1. From the provision u/s.307 IPC, it is evident that
first part thereof does not contemplate that receipt of any injury on ' .,
E the part of the victim is a pre-requisite for convicting an accused
thereunder. In the event injuries are received, the second part of
Section 307 would be attracted. The necessary ingredients for
~.
.
attracting the first part of Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code is
intention or knowledge. [Para 12) [235-G; 236-A)
F 1.2. The decision of this Court in Parsuram Pandey & Ors. v.
State ofBihar, itself is an authority for the proposition that intention
of or knowledge relating to the commission of murder and the doing
of an act towards it are the two ingredients of the offence under . '
Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code. The High Court's .iudgment,
G therefore, cannot be sustained. It is set aside accordingly. The
matter is remitted to the High Court for consideration of the matter
afresh. [Paras 14 and 15) [237-A, B, CJ
\-
Parsuram Pandey & Ors. v. State of Bihar (2004) 13 SCC 189,
H relied on.
-_,_

PRAKASHCHANDRA YADAVv. STATE [SINHA,].] 233
__j

1.3. It is clarified that the Court has not gone into the merit of A
the matter. [Para 15] (237-B, C]
CRIMINAL APPELLATE mRISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No.
1427of2007.
From the Judgment and final Order dated 22.12.2006 of the High B
Court of Judicature at Patna in Cr. Revision No. 241 of2001 and Criminal
Appeal No. 47 of 1999.
_,
S. Chandra Shekhar for the Appellant.
V. Shekhar, Manish Kumar, Gopal Singh, Anukul Raj, Kameshwar c
Singh, Zangpo Sherpa, Abhigya, M.A. Chinnasamy and Radha Kant
Tripathy for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
S.B. SINHA, J. 1. Leave granted. D
A 2. This appeal is directed against a judgment and order dated
22.12.2006 passed by a Division Bench of the Patna High Court allowing
J ' the appeals preferred by the respondents herein and dismissing the criminal
revision filed by the appellants herein.
E
3. The factual matrix of the matter, as stated in the First Information
Report, is that at about 12.30 pm on 3.2.1994, the informant, Prakash
Chandra Yadav (PW-10) went to Railway Authority Club, Jamalpur to
receive the Chief Railway Engineer, Eastern Railway Gorakhpur and
Additional Divisional Engineer, Sonepur. He waited for the said officers F
)' but having come to learn that they would come later, left the club for his
~ . home at about 3.15 pm by his motorcycle. Mantu Kumar (PW-7) was
with him on the said motorcycle.
4. Accused, Shyamdeo, named in the First Information Report as
also one unknown man, were standing on the road and were allegedly G
~
noticed by the informant after coming out of the southern gate of the club.
-f When they were proceeding towards the west, Shyamdeo ordered to kill
the informant whereupon Janardan Yadav took out a bomb from his bag
and hurled the same towards them. It, however, did not explode.
H
-r
I

234 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 11 S.C.R.

A Respondent Satya Narayan Yadav also hurled a bomb towards the
informant. It exploded but the informant did not sustain any injury. Several
persons assembled at the said place whereupon, Shyamdeo Yadav
allegedly chased them with his licensed gun.
5. The said incident is said to have been witnessed by Suresh Yadav,
B Jawahar Yadav, Ram Naresh Prasad and several others. Besides Prakash
Chandra Yadav (PW-10) and the informant, the prosecution examined
Suresh Yadav (PW-3), who is the brother of the informant, Jawahar
yadav (PW-4) cousin of the informant, Chunkeshwar (PW-2), Ram
Naresh Yadav (PW-5), father of the informant and Mantu Kumar (PW-
C 7) (who was the pillion rider) besides B.K. Mishra (PW-9), the Assistant
Director, Regional Forensic Science Laboratory, Muzaffarpur, the
Chemical Examiner who had examined the alleged explosive substances
recovered from the place of occurrence.
D 6. Accused were charged for alleged commission of offence under
Sections 334 and 3071109 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 and
4 of the Explosive Substances Act. Motive for commission of the said
offence is said to be rivalry inter se between the parties in regard to grant
of railway contract(s). ' -\.

E 7. The learned Sessions Judge found the respondents guilty for
commission of an offence under Section 307/109B of the Indian Penal
Code but acquitted them from the charges under Sections 3 and 4 of the
Explosive Substance Act on the ground that no sanction from the
appropriate authority had been obtained therefor. Janardan Yadav and
F Satya Nruyan was convicted under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code
and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years and y
Shyamdeo Yadav was convicted under Section 307/109 of the Indian
Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three
years.
G
8. An appeal was preferred by the respondent before the High
Court. The first informant also filed a criminal revision application against
the judgment and order acquitted the respondents under Sections 3 and \--
4 of the Explosive Substances Act as also for enhancement of sentence.
Both, the criminal appeal as also the revision application, were taken up
H
+
PRAKASHCHANDRA YADAVv. STATE [SINHA,J.] 235

for hearing together by a Division Bench of the Patna High Court. A
9. The High Court in its judgment started with the deposition of the
prosecution witnesses. As regards the deposition of Prakash Chandra
Yadav (PW- I0) (informant), it was noticed that he had fully supported
the case of the prosecution. Similar narration of the statements made by
the prosecution witnesses were carried out the High Court from B
paragraphs 8 to 13 of the judgment. Paragraphs 14 to 16 referred to the
submissions made by the learned advocate for the respondents. Paragraphs
17 to 19 were devoted to the submissions made by the counsel for the
appellant in support of the criminal revision application. Paragraph 20
thereof recorded that the sanction accorded by the District Magistrate C
did not sub-serve the requirements oflaw.
The judgment of the High Court is contained only in paragraph 21
thereof.
10. To say the least, the judgment of the High Court is wholly D
J unsatisfactory. The High Court nowhere arrived at the finding that the
prosecution witnesses contradicted themselves in material particulars so
as to render their testimonies untrustworthy. It did not arrive at a finding
that the findings of the Trial Judge were either unsatisfactory or contrary
to the legal principles. The High Court opined that as no injury had been E
caused to the informant and PW-7, a case under Section 307 of the IPC
is not made out. The said finding, in our opinion, is not legally sound.
11. Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code reads as under :
"Section 307. Attempt to murder.-Whoever does any act with F
such intention or knowledge, and under such circumstances that,
if he by that act caused death, he would be guilty or 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 b~ G
liable either to imprisonment for life, or to such punishment as is
hereinbefore mentioned."
12. From a bare perusal of the said provision, it is evident that first
part thereof does not contemplate that receipt of any injury on the part H
t
236 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 11 S.C.R.

A of the victim is a pre.,.requisite for convicting an accused thereunder. In
the event injuries are received, the second part of Section 307 would be
attracted. The necessary ingredients for attracting the first part of Section
307 of the Indian Penal Code is intention or knowledge. The legal position
would be evident from the illustration (c) appended to the said provision
B which reads as under:
"(c) A, intending to murder Z, buys a gun and loads it. A has not
yet committed the offence. A fires the gun at Z. He has committed
the offence defined in this section, and if by such firing he wounds
Z, he is liable to the punishment provided by the latter part of the
c first paragraph of this section."
13. Mr. V. Shekhar, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of
the respondent has drawn our attention to a decision of this Court in
Parsuram Pandey & Ors. v. State of Bihar, [2004] 13 SCC 189
D wherein, inter alia, it was held :
"To constitute an offence under Section 307 two ingredients of the ~.
offence must be present:
(a) an intention of or knowledge relating to commission of murder;
E and
(b) the doing of an act towards it.
For the purpose of Section 307 what is material is the intention or
the knowledge and not the consequence of the actual act done for
F the purpose of carrying out the intention. The section clearly
contemplates an act which is done with intention of causing death
but which fails to bring about the intended consequence on account
of intervening circumstances. The intention or knowledge of the
accused must be such as is necessary to constitute murder. In the
G absence of intention or knowledge which is the necessary ingredient
of Section 307, there can be no offence "of attempt to murder".
Intent which is a state of mind cannot be proved by precise direct
1-
evidence, as a fact it can only be detected or inferred from other
factors. Some of the relevant considerations may be the nature of
the weapon used, the place where injuries were inflicted, the nature
H
PRAKASHCHANDRA YADAVv. STATE [SINHA,J.] 237

of the injuries and the circumstances in which the incident took A
place."

14. The said decision, therefore, itself is an authority for the
proposition that intention of or knowledge relating to the commission of
murder and the doing of an act towards it are the two ingredients of t\le B
offence under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code.
15. The High Court's judgment, therefore, cannot be sustained. It
is set aside accordingly. The matter is remitted to the High Court for
consideration of the matter afresh. We, however, make it clear that we
have not gone into the merit of the matter. The High Court is requested C
to hear and dispose of the criminal appeal expeditiously. The appeal is
allowed with the aforementioned directions.
S.K.S. Appeal allowed.

t .