Supreme Court of India
STATE OF M.P.versusMOHAN & OTHERS
- Citation
- 2013 INSC 503
- Decided
- 30 July 2013
- Disposal
- Appeal(s) allowed
- Bench
- K S RADHAKRISHNAN
Holding
A conviction under Section 307 IPC is sustained by the mere causing of hurt, even if the injury is not on a vital part, and the High Court's reduction of the sentence was erroneous.
Summary
The accused fired multiple gunshots at complainants, causing lacerated wounds that did not involve vital organs. They were convicted under Section 307 read with Section 34 of the IPC and sentenced to three years' rigorous imprisonment by the trial court. The High Court reduced the sentence to the time already served, holding that injury to non‑vital parts did not warrant a harsher penalty. The Supreme Court held that for an offence under Section 307, the mere causing of "hurt" (as defined in Section 319) suffices; the injury need not be on a vital part, and the High Court erred in reducing the sentence without adequate reasoning. Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court order and restored the trial court's sentence.
Issues considered
- Whether injury to a non‑vital part of the body can attract conviction under Section 307 IPC.
- Whether the High Court can reduce a sentence for an offence under Section 307 without stating reasons and without considering the adequacy of the sentence.
- Interpretation of the term "hurt" in Section 307 in relation to Sections 319 and 320 IPC.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973s. 360
- Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 294, s. 307, s. 319, s. 320, s. 34
Subjects
Attempt to murderSection 307 IPCSentencingReduction of sentenceNon‑vital injuryHurt vs grievous hurtCriminal law
Judgment
[2013] 7 S.C.R. 802
A STATE OF M.P.
v.
MOHAN & OTHERS
(Criminal Appeal No. 1052 of 2013)
JULY 30, 2013
B
[K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN AND
PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE, JJ.]
•
Penal Code, 1860:
c
s.307 read with s.319 - Attempt to murder- Ingredients
of - Explained - Held: A gun shot, as in the instant case, may
miss the vital part of the body and may result in a lacerated
wound, that itself is sufficient to attract s. 307 - High Court
0 is, therefore, in error in reducing the sentence, holding that
the injury was not on the vital part of the body - Sentence/
Sentencing.
Sentence/Sentencing:
E Trial court sentencing the accused to 3 years RI u/s 307
/PC for causing gun shot injuries to victims - High Court
reducing the sentence to period already undergone - Held:
In spite of various judicial pronouncements of Supreme Court,
High Courts are reducing the sentence without application of
F mind and stating any reasons - In a case where accused
persons have found been guilty u/s 307 /PC, the sentence
already undergone, of about 20 to 50 days or 211 days, would
not be an adequate sentence and not commensurate with the
guilt established - If High Court considers it fit to reduce the
G sentence, it must state reasons, for the reduction -
Administration of justice - Judgments/Orders.
The respondents-accused, who were prosecuted for
causing gun-shot injuries to complainants, were
H 802
STATE OF M.P. v. MOHAN 803
convicted by the trial court u/s 307 IPC and were A
sentenced to 3 years RI each. On appeal, the High Court
reduced the sentence to the period already undergone,
which was 50 days, 211 days, 39 days, and 23 days
respectively, in respect of the four respondents, holding
that injury was not caused on the vital parts of the body. B
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1. A gun shot, as in the instant case, may
miss the vital part of the body and may result in a
lacerated wound, that itself is sufficient to attract s.307. C
The High Court, while reducing the sentence, has not
properly appreciated the scope of s.307, IPC under which
the respondents were found guilty. In order to attract
s.307, causing of hurt is sufficient and the injury need not
be on the vital parts of the body. If anybody does any act D
with intention or knowledge that by his act he might
cause death and hurt is caused, that is sufficient to attract
life imprisonment. Section 307 IPC uses the word 'hurt'
which has been explained in s.319, IPC and not "grievous
hurt" within the meaning of s.320, IPC. Therefore, in order E
to attract s.307, the injury need not be on the vital part of
the body. High Court is, therefore, in error in reducing the
sentence, holding that the injury was not on the vital part
of the body. Period undergone by way of sentence also
is not commensurate with the guilt established. There is F
no good reason to interfere with the judgment of the trial
court. The judgment of the High Court reducing the
sentence is set aside and that of the trial court restored.
[para 15, 16 and 18] [860-D-E, G-H; 811-A-C; 812-D]
1.2. In spite of various judicial pronouncements of G
this Court, the High Courts are committing the same
mistake and reducing the sentence without application
of mind and stating no reasons. In a case where the
accused persons have been found guilty u/s 307 IPC, the
sentence already undergone of about 20 to 50 days or H
804 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 7 S.C.R.
A 211 days would not be an adequate sentence, nor would
it be commensurate with the guilt established. If the High
Court considers it fit to reduce the sentence, it must state
reasons, for the reduction. [para 14] [810-B-D]
Sadha Singh and Another v. State of Punjab (1985) 3
8
SCC 225; State of M. P. v. Sangram and Others 2005 (1)
=
Suppl. SCR 562 AIR 2006 SC 48; and State of Madhya
Pradesh v. Saleem @ Chamaru and Anr. 2005 (1) Suppl.
=
SCR 562 AIR 2005 SC 3996 - relied on
c Case Law Reference:
(1985) 3 sec 225 relied on para 12
AIR 2006 SC 48 relied on para 13
2005 (1) Suppl. SCR 562 relied on para 17
D
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal
No. 1052 of 2013.
From the Judgment and Order dated 13.12.2011 of the
E High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Judicature Jabalpur, Bench at
Gwalior in Criminal Appeal No. 898 of 2007.
B.P. Singh, C.D. Singh for the Appellant.
Arvind Kumar for the Respondents.
F
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J. 1. L~ave granted.
2. State is aggrieved by the order of the High Court dated
G 13.12.2011 passed in CRLA No. 898 of 2007, reducing the
sentence awarded by the trial Court from three years Rigorous
Imprisonment with a fine of Rs.1,000/- to each of the accused
persons, with default clause, to that of the period already
undergone.
H
STATE OF M.P. v. MOHAN 805
[K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.]
3. Respondents herein were charge-sheeted for the A
offences punishable under Sections 294, 307 read with Section
34 IPC and were convicted and sentenced as stated above.
The incident leading to the above charges occurred on
11.6.2006 at 11.00 O'clock in the night when complainants
attempted to drive away the animals of the accused persons B
trespassed into their courtyard. Accused persons, infuriated by
the conduct o_t the complainants, reached the spot of the
incident and started abusing them. One of the accused, Ummed
Singh, using his fire arm, fired a gun shot, which hit Lalaram,
one of the complainants on his back and the complainant c
including Lalaram in order to save their lives ran away from the
spot. Ummed Singh again fired another gunshot, which hit
Mogh Singh, another complainant. Due to the injuries sustained
by Lalaram, he fell down. The accused persons committed the
same in furtherance of their common intention or knowledge that D
their actions would result in causing death to the complainants.
4. The prosecution, in order to establish the guilt of the
accused persons, examined large number of witnesses
including PW14, the doctor who examined the injured persons.
The defence also adduced oral evidence. E
5. Dr. Sudhir Rathore (PW-14) examined the injured
Lalaram on 12.6.2006 and found the following injuries on his
person:
(i) Lacerated wound having diameter of 0.5 cm. over F
scalp occipital region and skin deep blackening
seen all around the wound.
(ii) Lacerated wound of 0.5cm over left scapular region
and muscle deep blackening seen all around the G
wound.
(iii) Lacerated wound of 0.5 cm. over right arm middle,
1/3rd medial aspect and blackening seen all
around.
H
806 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2013] 7 S·.C.R.
A P.W.14, after examining Kamar Lal on 12.2.2006, noticed
the following injuries on him:
(i) Lacerated wound of 0.5 cm on the right thumb and
the blackening was present all around the injury.
B (ii) Lacerated wound of 0.5 cm on the lateral aspect.
6. P.W.14 also examined the father of the complainant and
found lacerated wound of 0.5 cm on the vertex part of the head
and the blackening was found all around the wound. Doctor
c deposed that the injuries were caused by the use of the firearm.
7. The trial court after appreciating the entire evidence held
as follows:
"46. In the night at 11 O' clock coming of the accused
D persons equipped with weapons and firing at the informant
side not only once rather several times and to do so without
any provocation and at the time of occurrence there
intention also that killed all of them, show this common
intention of the accused persons that in reality the intention
E of the accused persons was to kill the informant side.
48. In such circumstance for concluding the intention of the
accused persons the selection of the vehicle used in the
crime by them is very important, which is in the
circumstance of the present case is gun and according to
F
the report (Exhibit P.26), the pellet, article 'D' has been
examined this can be fired from the gun, article 'A-1' and
an one barreled gun of 12 bore even the examination of
which has been done by the Assistant Chemical Examiner
and the Senior Scientist Officer, according to that it was
G in the operative condition and from the residue found in
the barreled of which the presence of nitrite has been
found to be positive which shows this that this gun has
been used and although conclusively this cannot be said
that when it has been used for the last time, because
H scientifically it is not possible to tell this with certainty."
STATE OF M.P. v. MOHAN 807
[K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.]
8. The trial Court, after holding the accused persons guilty A
of the charges leveled against them, took a lenient view, though
the term of the sentence under Section 307 IPC may extend to
life imprisonment, if hurt is caused to any person by such an
act and held as follows:
B
"58. The entire circumstances was studied. The accused
persons are farmers and both the side are of same family.
Among them the dispute of partition is pending.
Prominently and importantly the injuries which have been
.
sustained by the injured persons, except the injury of thumb
others are of superficial nature the doctor has not given
c
report regarding any injury to be fatal; therefore in the well-
thoug ht opinion it is very essential to give this much
sentence to the accused persons, due to which they can
realize the seriousness of their crime and which is in D
accordance with the offence committed by them."
9. Taking note of the above aspects, the trial Court, as
already indicated, sentenced all the accused persons to suffer
three years' rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of E
Rs.1,000/- each and in case of default of payment of fine, the
accused persons were ordered to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for further one year.
10. In the appeal before the High Court, the accused
F
persons stated that they had already deposited the fine and are
challenging only on the quantum of sentence. Further, it was also
submitted that the accused persons were not persons of
criminal antecedent. The High Court, we may say so, by a
cryptic order reduced the sentence awarded to the accused
persons to the period already undergone by them. The relevant G
portion of the order of the High Court is extracted hereunder:
"Considering the nature of offence and the period
which has already undergone by the appellants, further
H
808 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 7 S.C.R.
A considering the fact that the injury has not been caused on
vital part, seems to be sufficient for the ends of justice.
Therefore, the appeal filed by the appellants is partly
allowed maintaining the conviction of the appellants and
their jail sentences are reduced to already undergone."
B
11. Even though the High Court has stated that the
sentence is being reduced taking note of the nature of the
offence and the fact that injury has not been caused on the vital
parts of the body, we notice, it has neither been discussed nor
C referred to the nature of the offence or the injuries. The High
Court also not examined whether the period undergone would
be sufficient and commensurate with the guilt established. The
following chart also would indicate the period the accused
persons spent in judicial custody:
D s. Name of the Date of Date of Days of
No. accused arrest release Custod~
1. Mohan Singh 12.06.06 31.07.06 50 days
Dhakad
2. Ummed Singh 13.06.06 08.01.2007 211 Days
E
Dhakad
3. Balbir Singh 17.06.2006 25.07.2006 39 Days
Dhakad
4. Hiralal Yadav 03.07.2006 25.07.2006 23 Days
F
12. PW14, the doctor, has explained the nature of injur!es
and use of the firearm for causing the injuries. Fire arm, it is
proved, was used repeatedly against the complainants, causing
bodily hurt. This Court had occasion to consider the scope of
G Section 307, IPC in Sadha Singh and Another v. State of
Punjab (1985) 3 SCC 225, wherein the trial Court awarded the
substantive sentence of three years of rigorous imprisonment
and also imposed a fine, which were reduced by the High Court
to a period of three months of imprisonment already undergone
H
STATE OF M.P. v. MOHAN 809
[K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.]
by the accused, but by enhancing the fine. This Court held that A
the reduction of the sentence was not justified. In that case also,
the doctor opined that the injuries were caused by firearm, just
like the present case. This Court, reversing the judgment of the
High Court and upholding that of the trial Court, held as follows:
B
"8. If the learned Judge had in mind the provisions
of Section 360 of CrPC so as to extend the benefit of
treatment reserved for first offenders, these appellants
hardly deserve the same. Admittedly, both the appellants
were above the age of 21 years on the date of committing
the offence. They have wielded dangerous weapons like C
firearms. Four shots were fired. The only fortunate part of
the occurrence is that the victim escaped death. The
offence committed by the appellants is proved to be one
under Section 307 of IPC punishable with imprisonment
for life. We were told that the appellants had hardly D
suffered imprisonment for three months. If the offence is
under Section 307 IPC i.e. attempt to commit murder
which is punishable with imprisonment for life/and the
sentence to be awarded is imprisonment for three months,
it is better not to award substantive sentence as it makes E
mockery of justice ........ "
13. This Court in State of M.P. v. Sangram and Others
(AIR 2006 SC 48) took strong exception in the manner in which
the High Court, while disposing of the criminal appeal, reduced F
the sentence without application of mind. That was also a case
where the accused was charge-sheeted for offence punishable
under Section 307 IPC. The trial Court imposed the sentence
of seven years rigorous imprisonment, which was reduced by
the High Court to one year, without stating any satisfactory
reasons for reduction of sentence. This Court held as follows: G
"5. The High Court has not assigned any satisfactory
reasons for reducing the sentence to less than one year.
6. That apart, the High Court has written a very short H
810 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013) 7 S.C.R.
A and cryptic judgment. To say the least, the appeal has been
disposed of in a most unsatisfactory manner exhibiting
complete non-application of mind. There is absolutely no
consideration of the evidence adduced by the parties."
14. We are of the view that in spite of various judicial
8
pronouncements of this Court, we have come across several
cases where the High Courts are committing the same mistake
and reducing the sentence without application of mind and
stating no reasons. In a case where the accused persons have
C already been found guilty under Section 307 IPC, we fail to see
how the sentence of about 20 to 50 days or 211 days in the
case of accused Ummed Singh, would be an adequate
sentence. Sentence already undergone, in our view, is not
commensurate with the guilt established. If the High Court
considers it fit to reduce the sentence, it must state reasons,
D for the reduction.
15. High Court, in our view, while reducing the sentence,
has not properly appreciated the scope of Section 307, IPC
under which the respondents were found guilty.
E
The relevant portion of Section 307 reads as follows:
"397. 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,
F 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
G mentioned ........ "
16. High Court was of opinion that injuries has not been
caused on vital parts of the body. In order to attract Section 307,
the injury need not be on the vital parts of the body. In order to
H attract Section 307, causing of hurt is sufficient. If anybody does
STATE OF M.P. v. MOHAN 811
[K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.]
any act with intention or knowledge that by his act he might A
cause death and hurt is caused, that is sufficient to attract life
imprisonment. Section 307 uses the word 'hurt' which has been
explained in Section 319, IPC and not "grievous hurt" within the
meaning of Section 320, IPC. Therefore, in order to attract
Section 307, the injury need not be on the vital part of the body. B
A gun shot, as in the present case, may miss the vital part of
the body, may result in a lacerated wound, that itself is sufficient
to attract Section 307. High Court is, therefore, in error in
reducing the sentence, holding that the injury was not on the vital
part of the body. Period undergone by way ofsentence also in c
our view is not commensurate with the guilt established.
17. We also have to remind ourselves the object and
purpose of imposing adequate sentence. Reference may be
made to the judgment of this Court in State of Madhya Pradesh
v. Saleem @ Chamaru and Anr., AIR 2005 SC 3996. D
"8. The object should be to protect the society and to deter
the criminal in achieving the avowed object of law by
imposing appropriate sentence. It is expected that the
Courts would operate the sentencing system so as to E
impose "'such sentence which reflects the conscience of
the society and the sentencing process has to be stem
where it should be.
9. Imposition of sentence without considering its effect on
the social order in many cases may be in reality a futile F
exercise. The social impact of the crime, e.g. where it
relates to offences against women, dacoity, kidnapping,
misappropriation of public money, treason and other
offences involving moral turpitude -or moral delinquency
which have great impact on social order, and public G
interest, cannot be lost sight of and per se require
exemplary treatment. Any liberal attitude by imposing
meager sentences or taking too sympathetic view merely
on account of lapse of time in respect of such offences will
be result-wise counter productive in the long run and H
812 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 7 S.C.R.
A against societal interest which needs to be cared for and
strengthened by string of deterrence inbuilt in the
sentencing system.
10. The Court will be failing in its duty if appropriate
punishment is not awarded for a crime which has beE:in
B
committed not only against the individual victim but also
against the society to which the criminal and victim belong.
The punishment to be awarded for a crime must not be
irrelevant but it should conform to and be consistent with
the atrocity and brutality with which the crime has been
c perpetrated, the enormity of the crime warranting public
abhorrence and it should "respond to the society's cry for
justice against the criminal"."
18. We, therefore, find no good reason to interfere with the
D judgment of the trial court. Consequently, the appeal is allowed
and judgment of the High Court reducing the sentence is set
aside and the judgment and order of the trial Court are restored.
R.P. Appeal allowed.
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "Attempt to murder"Sign in to search