SIVAMANI AND ANR.versusSTATE REPRESENTED BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE, VELLORE TALUK POLICE STATION, VELLORE DISTRICT

                [2023] 14 S.C.R. 849 : 2023 INSC 1027



                            CASE DETAILS

                        SIVAMANI AND ANR.
                                     v.
STATE REPRESENTED BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE, VELLORE
       TALUK POLICE STATION, VELLORE DISTRICT
                   (Criminal Appeal No. 3619 of 2023)
                         NOVEMBER 28, 2023
   [VIKRAM NATH AND AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH, JJ.]

                             HEADNOTES

     Issue for consideration: Victims sustained simple injuries. Whether
Courts below were justified in convicting appellants u/s. 307 IPC.
     Penal Code, 1860 – ss. 323, 324 and 307 – Trial Court convicted
appellants (accused Nos.3 and 4) u/s. 307, IPC and sentenced to 10 years’
rigorous imprisonment – High Court reduced the imprisonment from
10 years to 5 years – Propriety:
      Held: PW1 and accused no.1 had a dispute concerning a lane between
their houses – A civil case regarding the same was also pending between
them – Accused nos. 1, 2 and 5 along with appellants (accused Nos.3 and
4) reached the shop of PW-1 – Accused No.2 is stated to have abused PW1
and beaten him – The appellants (accused Nos.3 and 4) tried to attack PW1
with a knife, but PW1 escaped from their attack and caught hold of the
appellants’ hands, as a result of which, sustained abrasion injuries on his
right shoulder and left thumb – PW2 (PW1’s mother) was also injured –
PW13 (doctor) found injuries to be simple in nature – Having considered
the facts and circumstances of the case the impugned judgment of the High
Court requires to be interfered with – Admittedly, there is no allegation of
repeated or severe blows having been inflicted – Even the injuries on PW1
and PW2 have been found to be simple in nature, which is an additional
point in the appellants’ favour – From the materials available on record,
only offences u/ss. 323 and 324 of the IPC can be made out – As such, the
conviction u/s. 307, IPC is unsustainable. [Paras 5, 6, 9, 10, 11]

                                    849
850          SUPREME COURT REPORTS                       [2023] 14 S.C.R.



      LISTS OF CITATIONS AND OTHER REFERENCES

    State of Madhya Pradesh v Saleem, (2005) 5 SCC 554: [2005] 1 Suppl.
SCR 562; Jage Ram v State of Haryana, (2015) 11 SCC 366: [2015] 11
SCR 1004; State of Madhya Pradesh v Kanha, (2019) 3 SCC 605: [2019]
1 SCR 1074 – referred to.
       OTHER CASE DETAILS INCLUDING IMPUGNED
              ORDER AND APPEARANCES
    CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal
No.3619 of 2023.
     From the Judgment and Order dated 06.08.2021 of the High Court of
Judicature at Madras in CRLA No.228 of 2015.
      Appearances:
     S. Nagamuthu, Sr. Adv., M. P. Parthiban, Ms. Priyaranjani Nagamuthu,
R. Sudhakaran, G. R. Vikash, Bilal Mansoor, Advs. for the Appellants.
    Dr. Joseph Aristotle S., Ms. Shubhi Bhardwaj, Ms. Vaidehi Rastogi,
Advs. for the Respondent.
       JUDGMENT / ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT

                              JUDGMENT

      AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH, J.
      1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
      2. Leave granted.
      3. The present appeal is directed against the Final Order and Judgment
dated 06.08.2021 (hereinafter referred to as the “Impugned Judgment”)
passed by the High Court of Judicature at Madras (hereinafter referred
to as the “High Court”) in Criminal Appeal No.228 of 2015, whereby the
appeal filed by the appellants against their conviction by the Trial Court
under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to
as the “IPC”) and imposition of fine of Rs.1000/- each has been confirmed,
but the sentence of 10 years Rigorous Imprisonment has been reduced to 5
years Rigorous Imprisonment.
  SIVAMANI v. STATE REPRESENTED BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE,                851
     VELLORE TALUK POLICE STATION, VELLORE DISTRICT
                [AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH, J.]
     THE FACTUAL PRISM:
      4. The appellants along with three others were named by the
Complainant in First Information Report No.409/12 dated 15.09.2012 under
Sections 294(b), 323, 324, 452 and 307 read with 109 of the IPC accusing
them of a conspiracy to cause the death of the Complainant. Upon trial,
the Accused Nos.1, 2 and 5 were acquitted and the appellants, who were
Accused Nos.3 and 4 were convicted under Section 307, IPC and sentenced
to 10 years’ Rigorous Imprisonment and fined Rs.1000/- each. The appeal
preferred by the appellants before the High Court did not succeed in full,
and only resulted in the sentence of Rigorous Imprisonment being reduced
from 10 years to 5 years. This gives rise to the present appeal.
     SUBMISSIONS BY THE APPELLANTS:
      5. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the case of the
prosecution is that there was previous enmity between the Complainant-
Prakash alias Chinnaraj/PW1 and Accused No.1. He detailed the prosecution
story as follows. It was submitted that PW1 and Accused No.1 had a dispute
concerning a lane between their houses. A civil case in such respect was
also pending between them. During the pendency of the suit, an Advocate
Commissioner was appointed through the Court, who measured the land in
dispute and allotted portions to Accused No.1 and PW1. PW1 had put up
fencing within the portion allotted to him, and on account of this, Accused
No.1 used to quarrel with him. Fifteen days prior to the incident, Accused
No.1 had removed the fencing and again picked up a quarrel with PW1 and
threatened to kill him. Pursuant thereto, Accused No.1 conspired with the
Accused Nos.2, 3, 4 and 5 to put an end to the life of PW1. Consequently,
on 15.09.2012, while PW1 was in his grocery shop, on the instigation of
Accused No.1, Accused Nos.2 and 5 along with the appellants (Accused
Nos.3 and 4) reached the shop. Accused No.2 is stated to have abused PW1
in filthy and obscene language and beaten him with force on his cheek by
hand. The appellants tried to attack PW1 with a knife, but PW1 escaped
from their attack and caught hold of the appellants’ hands, as a result of
which, sustained abrasion injuries on his right shoulder and left thumb.
On hearing this alarm, PW2-Indirani (PW1’s mother) came to his rescue
and at that time, the Accused No.5 attacked her with a cold drink bottle on
her back, causing a simple injury. Meanwhile, the neighbours came to the
852          SUPREME COURT REPORTS                        [2023] 14 S.C.R.


scene of occurrence and tried to save PW1 and on seeing them, the Accused
Nos.2 and 5 escaped in an auto-rickshaw. The appellants were caught by the
villagers and were tied to a streetlamp post. Thereafter, they were produced
before the respondent-police by the villagers.
      6. However, it was pointed out that the allegations against all the
accused being more or less similar in nature, the appellants could not have
been convicted under Section 307, IPC as the doctor (PW13) itself found
the injuries to be simple in nature and not on any vital part of the body.
Moreover, it was submitted that there was no intention to kill; neither there
were repeated blows, nor was it pre-planned, when admittedly there was a
civil suit pending between Accused No.1 and PW1. It was submitted that
even the prosecution story would indicate that a quarrel had arisen between
the Accused No.1 and PW1, due to which a complaint to the police was
made by PW1, which further aggravated the enmity. The appellants are
alleged to have come to the shop of the Complainant, when he was alone,
armed with one knife each and attempted to attack the complainant on
his neck but he managed to escape unhurt. It was submitted that had the
appellants come with the motive to kill both PW1 and PW2 and were armed
with knives, they could easily have ensured the death of the Complainant.
Learned counsel submitted that in any view of the matter, there could have
been some justification to proceed against the appellants under Sections 323
and 324 of the IPC but not under Section 307, IPC, as has been done. It was
submitted that the two victims had sustained only simple injuries, whereas
one victim-PW2 had complained that she had fallen upon being attacked
on her back but she did not sustain any extraordinary injury and even that
was found to be simple in nature. Likewise, the other victim PW1 sustained
abrasion injuries on his right shoulder and left thumb which are simple in
nature.
      SUBMISSIONS OF THE RESPONDENT-STATE/POLICE:
      7. Learned counsel for the State submitted that the appellants being
armed with knives (one each) clearly indicates that they intended to kill and
it was only due to providence that their lives were saved.
      ANALYSIS, REASONING AND CONCLUSION:
      8. Section 307, IPC reads as under:
 SIVAMANI v. STATE REPRESENTED BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE,                    853
    VELLORE TALUK POLICE STATION, VELLORE DISTRICT
               [AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH, J.]
     ‘307. 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.
     Attempts by life convicts.—When any person offending under this
     section is under sentence of imprisonment for life, he may, if hurt is
     caused, be punished with death.
           Illustrations
           (a) A shoots at Z with intention to kill him, under such
     circumstances that, if death ensued, A would be guilty of murder. A is
     liable to punishment under this section.
           (b) A, with the intention of causing the death of a child of tender
     years, exposes it in a desert place. A has committed the offence defined
     by this section, though the death of the child does not ensue.
           (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 first
     paragraph of this section.
          (d) A, intending to murder Z, by poison, purchases poison and
     mixes the same with food which remains in A’s keeping; A has not yet
     committed the offence in this section. A places the food on Z’s table
     or delivers it to Z’s servants to place it on Z’s table. A has committed
     the offence defined in this section.’
      9. In State of Madhya Pradesh v Saleem, (2005) 5 SCC 554, the Court
held that to sustain a conviction under Section 307, IPC, it was not necessary
that a bodily injury capable of resulting in death should have been inflicted.
As such, non-conviction under Section 307, IPC on the premise only that
simple injury was inflicted does not follow as a matter of course. In the
same judgment, it was pointed out that ‘…The court has to see whether the
854              SUPREME COURT REPORTS                                 [2023] 14 S.C.R.


act, irrespective of its result, was done with the intention or knowledge and
under circumstances mentioned in the section.’ The position that because
a fatal injury was not sustained alone does not dislodge Section 307, IPC
conviction has been reiterated in Jage Ram v State of Haryana, (2015) 11
SCC 366 and State of Madhya Pradesh v Kanha, (2019) 3 SCC 605. Yet, in
Jage Ram (supra) and Kanha (supra), it was observed that while grievous
or life-threatening injury was not necessary to maintain a conviction under
Section 307, IPC, ‘The intention of the accused can be ascertained from
the actual injury, if any, as well as from surrounding circumstances. Among
other things, the nature of the weapon used and the severity of the blows
inflicted can be considered to infer intent.’1
      10. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case and
submissions of learned counsel for the parties, this Court is convinced that
the Impugned Judgment of the High Court requires to be interfered with.
Admittedly, there is no allegation of repeated or severe blows having been
inflicted. Even the injuries on PW1 and PW2 have been found to be simple
in nature, which is an additional point in the appellants’ favour.
     11. We are further inclined to accept the submissions of the learned
counsel for the appellants that from the materials on record, only offences
under Sections 3232 and 3243 of the IPC can be made out. As such, the
conviction under Section 307, IPC is unsustainable.
     12. In the background of the discussions made hereinabove and on
taking an overall view, the Impugned Judgment is varied only to the extent


1     Para 13 of Kanha (supra).
2     323. Punishment for voluntarily causing hurt.—Whoever, except in the case provided
      for by Section 334, voluntarily causes hurt, shall be punished with imprisonment of
      either description for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine which may
      extend to one thousand rupees, or with both.’
3     ‘324. Voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons or means.—Whoever, except
      in the case provided for by Section 334, voluntarily causes hurt by means of any
      instrument for shooting, stabbing or cutting, or any instrument which, used as a
      weapon of offence, is likely to cause death, or by means of fire or any heated substance,
      or by means of any poison or any corrosive substance, or by means of any explosive
      substance or by means of any substance which it is deleterious to the human body to
      inhale, to swallow, or to receive into the blood, or by means of any animal, shall be
      punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three
      years, or with fine, or with both.’
  SIVAMANI v. STATE REPRESENTED BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE,                 855
     VELLORE TALUK POLICE STATION, VELLORE DISTRICT
                [AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH, J.]
that the conviction of the appellants stands modified to that under Sections
323 and 324 of the IPC and the sentence imposed is also reduced to the
period already undergone. The fine imposed is maintained. The appellants
stand discharged of the liabilities of their bail bonds, if any.
      13. The appeal is disposed of accordingly.


Headnotes prepared by:                                       Appeal disposed.
Ankit Gyan