Supreme Court of India
VASANT VITHU JADHAVversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA
- Citation
- 2004 INSC 147
- Decided
- 9 March 2004
- Disposal
- Dismissed
- Bench
- Y K SABHARWAL
Holding
A conviction under Section 307 IPC is justified even if the injury is simple, provided the prosecution proves the accused's intention or knowledge to cause death, and the sentence may be reduced to five years.
Summary
Vasant Vithu Jadhav, a police constable, fired a rifle at his colleague Vilas from a distance of 6-8 feet while the victim slept, causing only simple hurt as the bullet fragmented. He was convicted by the High Court under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code for attempted murder and sentenced to ten years' rigorous imprisonment, along with a conviction under Section 27 of the Arms Act. The Supreme Court held that a conviction under Section 307 does not require the injury to be likely to cause death; the decisive factor is the accused's intention or knowledge, which can be inferred from the circumstances even when the wound is minor. Consequently, the High Court's conviction was upheld, but the sentence for Section 307 was reduced to five years, deemed sufficient for deterrence. The conviction under the Arms Act was left unchanged.
Issues considered
- Whether a conviction under Section 307 IPC is sustainable when the injury inflicted is simple hurt and not likely to cause death.
- Whether intention or knowledge to cause death can be inferred from the act and surrounding circumstances despite the nature of the injury.
- Whether the ten‑year sentence imposed under Section 307 IPC was appropriate or required modification.
Legislation cited
- Arms Act, 1959s. 27
- Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 307, s. 324
Subjects
attempt to murderSection 307 IPCsimple hurtintentionknowledgepolice officerArms Actsentencing
Judgment
- VASANT VITHU JADHA V
v.
A
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
MARCH 9, 2004
[Y.K. SABHARWAL AND-ARIJIT PASA\'.AT, JJ.] B
Penal Code, 1860:
Section 307-Attempt to murder-Accused fired a gun from close range
at the victim thereby inflicting injuries on him-Trial court found the injuries C
to be simple in nature and convicted the accused under S. 324 !PC-However,
High Court convicted the accused under S 307 IPC-Correctness of-Held:
The fact that injury was simple or minor would not, by itself, rule out application
of S. 307 !PC-The determinative question was intention or knowledge and
not nature of the injury-It is not necessary that the injury inflicted on the D
victim should be sufficient, under ordinary circumstances, to cause the death
of the person assaulted-Hence, High Court was justified in convicting the
accused under S. 307 !PC.
The appellant-accused fired a gun from a very close range at the
victim when he was sleeping. The bullet broke into pieces and three such E
pieces struck the accused thereby causing injuries to him.
The appellant was charge-sheeted for committing an offence under
Section 307 of the Penal Code, 1860. The trial court found that the injuries
inflicted on the victim were in the nature of simple hurt and; therefore,
convicted the appellant for an offence under Section 324 IPC. However, F
the High Court convicted the appellant under Section 307 IPC and
imposed a sentence of 10 years RI. Hence the appeal.
Dismissing the appeal, but modifying the sentences, the Court
HELD: 1. To justify a conviction under Section 307 of the Penal G
Code, 1860 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 assistance in coming to a finding as to the
intention of the accused, such intention may also be deduced from other
861 H
862 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2004] 2 S.C.R.
A circumstances, and may even, in some cases, be ascertained without any
reference at all to actual wounds. Section 307 IPC makes a distinction
between an act of the accused and its result, if any. Such an act may not
be attended by any result so far as the person assaulted is concerned, but
still there may be cases in which the culprit would be liable under this
Section. It is not necessary that the injury actually caused to the victim of
B the assault should be sufficient under ordinary circumstances to cause the
death of the person assaulted. What the Court has to see is whether the
act, irrespective of its result, was done with the intention or knowledge
and under circumstances mentioned in Section 307 IPC. An attempt in
order to be criminal need not be the penultimate act.
C [865-G-H; 866-A-B) -"'"·
2. It is sufficient to justify a conviction under Section 307 IPC 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. The Court has to see whether the act, irrespective of its result,
n· was done with the intention or knowledge and under circumstances
mentioned in the Section. Therefore, it is not correct to acquit an accused
of the charge under Section 307 IPC merely because the injuries inflicted
on the victim were in the nature of a simple hurt. (866-C-D]
State ofMaharashtra v. Bairam Rama Patil, (1983] 2 SCC 28 and Sarju
E Prasad v. State of Bihar, AIR (1965) SC 843 relied on.
Ram Prasad v. State of UP., [1982] 2 SCC 149 and Kundan Singh v.
State of Punjab, (1982) 3 SCC 213, referred to.
3. Whether there was intention to kill or knowledge that death will
F be caused is a question of fact and would depend on the facts of a given
case. The circumstances that the injury inflicted by the accused was simple
or minor will not by itself rule out the application of Section 307 IPC. The
determinative question is intention or knowledge, as the case may be, and
not nature of the injury. [866-F-G)
G 4. In the case at hand the accused fired a gun from a very close range
of about 6 to 8 feet aiming at the victim when he was sleeping. The bullet
broke into pieces and three such pieces struck the accused. Both intention
and knowledge in terms of Section 307 can be attributed to the accused .
Therefore, the High Court was justified in recording conviction of the
H accused-appellant under Section 307 IPC. Custodial sentence of 10 years
VASANT VITHU JADHAV ''·STA TE OF MAHARASHTRA [PASA YAT, J] 863
was passed, custodial sentence of the years would have necessarily A
chasterring and deterrent effect on the accused. (866-H; 867-A-Cf
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 522
of 1997.
From the Judgment and Order dated 31.1.1997 of the Bombay High B
Court in Cr!. A. No. 335/84 with Cr!. A. No. 525 of 1984.
Vijay Kumar, Satyajit Saha and Ms. V.D. Khanna for the Appellant.
R.B. Masodhkar and Ravindra K. Adsure for the Respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
c
ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. When member of a disciplined force like police
force is accused of having shot his colleague with a gun, it naturally raises
eyebrows and the case at hand is one such case. The victim Vilas (PW-2) was
a relative of the accused. D
According to the prosecution, over a petty family matter, accused took
exception and on 18. 7 .1983 fired a gun from a very close range aiming at the
victim lying on a cot. Luckily, the shot did not hit the victim, it hit springs·
of the cot, the bullet broke into pieces and the splinters entered into his leg.
Information was lodged with the police, investigation was undertaken and E
charge sheet was filed for alleged commission of offence punishable under
Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short 'the IPC') and Section
27 of the Arms Act, 1959 (for short 'the Arms Act').
The Trial Court placing reliance on the evidence of the witnesses
including victim found the accused guilty of the offence punishable under F
Section 324 IPC and sentenced him to undergo RI for one year. Similar
sentence was imposed for the offence under the Arms Act. It was held that
the factual background did not warrant conviction under Section 307 IPC.
The State of Maharashtra filed an appeal questioning acquittal of charge
under Section 307 IPC, ·while the accused questioned the conviction. Both G
the appeals were heard together by the Division Bench which by the impugned
judgment held that case under Section 307 was clearly made out, and the
Trial Court was not justified in holding that the accused was guilty of offence
- punishable under Section 324 IPC. Taking into account the fact that the
accused was supposed to be a guardian of law on the date of the occurrence
H
864 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2004] 2 S.C.R.
A and at a public place i.e. the guard room in the District Head Police
headquarters, he took law in his hands, custodial sentence of 10 years RI was
imposed. The sentence under the Arms Act was maintained. The appeal filed
by the accused was dismissed.
In support of the appeal, learned counsel for the accused appellant
B submitted that both the Trial Court and the High Court have fallen into grave·
error by holding that the prosecution evidence established commission of an
offence and consequently holding accused appellant guilty. Material evidence
which would have shown that the appellant could not have committed the
crime was suppressed. It was further submitted that even if the prosecution
C version is accepted in toto, offence under Section 307 JPC is not made out,
as was rightly held by the Trial Court. Strong Reliance was placed on few
decisions of this Court. Ram Prasad and Anr. v. State of Uttar Pradesh,
[1982] 2 SCC 149 and Kundan Singh v. State of Punjab, [1982] 3 SCC 213.
In any event, sentence imposed is harsh.
D Learned counsel for the respondent-State supported the judgment of the
High Court stating that well reasoned judgment of the High Court needs no
interference.
Before dealing with the rival stands, it would be necessary to take note
of the few factual aspects highlighted.
E
On 2.7.1983, victim Vilas's brother Bhagwan was married. In the said
marriage, family members of the accused were not invited. It appears that
they took exception to this. It is said that about 2-1 /2 months prior to the
incident, father of the accused had given a feast in the name of a deity,
wherein despite being invited Vilas's family members did not join. This
F appears to have further soured the relationship. On 16. 7. l 983, when Vilas
and his relative Shankar Kikade (PW-9) were returning from roll call to their
rooms, the accused came from behind on a cycle and sought an explanation
from Vilas for not calling him to his brother's marriage and for not attending
-
the feast which, he (accused) had given in honour of the deity. He threatened
G to kill Vilas in two days. Thereafter, he went away on a bicycle.
The evidence is that Vilas (PW-2) was residing in room no.19 with his
family members in Sangli Police Headquarters. In the same premises, the
accused was also residing. In the police Headquarters, there is a guard room
and a magazine Room which are practically adjoining. On the date of incident,
H i.e. 18.7.1983, at different times, Vilas and the accused were on guard room
865
--
VASANT VITHU JADHAV v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [PASAYAT, J.]
duty and magazine Room duty respectively. The victim Vilas was on guard A
Room duty from 12 midnight to 2 a.m. and the accused was on magazine
Room duty from 2 a.m. to 4 a.m. It is not in dispute that the guard room and
the magazine room were more or less contiguous. After 2 a.m. the victim
Vilas and Head Constable Pundalik Jadhav (PW-1) were sleeping on two
separate cots in the guard room. Some tubelights were lighting outside the
--- guard room and the same resulted in visibility therein. At about 3.30 a.m., the B
accused came to the band room where constable Vishnu Bansode was sleeping;
woke him up; and enquired from him where his bullets were. He told him
that he had returned them to Pundalik Jadhav (PW-1 ). The accused went
-- away. After about 25 minutes i.e. at 3.55 a.m. Vishnu and Pundalik heard
sound of firing and when they got up, they discovered that the accused was
standing near Vilas's cot in the guard room with a 303 rifle. Seeing them, he
c
threw the rifle and ran away. The rifle which the accused had used was of
police constable Bansode (PW-3). Constable Jagannath Whaval (PW-4) Police
Jamadar Madhukar Jadhav (PW-6), Police Naik Rajan Kamble (PW-7) and
Police constable Kisan Mali (PW-8) who were sleeping in the immediate
proximity of the victim Vilas saw the accused coming out from the guard D
room and running towards east. The victim Vilas discovered that he was
precariously injured. Pundalik Jadhav who was sleeping in the same room,
Madhukar Jadhav (PW-6) and some others reached the guard room. PW-6
gave a phone call to Dy. S.P. Malsure. He thereafter, took the victim to the
Civil Hospital, Sangli. E
In the aforesaid factual scenario it has to be seen whether Section 307
has application. Section 307, IPC reads as follows:
"Whoever does any act with such intention or knowledge, and under
such circumstances that, if he by that act caused death, he would be
F
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."
G
To justify a conviction under this Section, 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 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 actual wounds. The Section makes a distinction H
866 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2004] 2 S.C.R.
A between an act of the accused and its result, if any.· Such an act may not be
attended by any result so far as the person assaulted is concerned, but still
- •..-
there may be cases in which the culprit would be liable under this Section.
It is not necessary that the injury actually caused to the victim of the assault
should be sufficient under ordinary circumstances to cause the death of the
person assaulted. What the Court has to see is whether the act, irrespective
B of its result, was done with the intention or knowledge and under circumstances
mentioned in the Section. An attempt in order to be criminal need not be the
penultimate act. .
It is sufficient in law, if there is present an intent coupled with some
C overt act in execution thereof. 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. The Section 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
D under circumstances mentioned in the Section. Therefore, it is not correct to
acquit an accused of the charge under Section 307 IPC merely because the
injuries inflicted on the victim were in the nature of a simple hurt.
This position »'as highlighted in State of Maharashtra v. Bairam Barna
Patil and Ors., [1983] 2 SCC 28 and in Criminal Appeal No. 1034 of 1997
E decided on 4.2.2004, and in Criminal Appeal No. 1179 of 1997 decided on
11.2.2004.
In Sarju Prasad v.. State of Bihar, AIR (1965) SC 843 it was observed
in para 6 that mere fact that the injury actually inflicted by the accused did
F not cut any vital organ of the victim, is not by itself sufficient to take the act
out of the purview of Section 307.
Whether there was intention to kill or knowledge that death will be
caused is a question of fact and would depend on the facts of a given case.
The circumstances that the injury inflicted by the accused was simple or
G minor will not by itself rule out application of Section 307 IPC. The
detenninative question is intention or knowledge, as the case may be, and not
nature of the injury.
In the case at hand the accused fired gun from a very close range of
about 6-8 feet aiming at the victim when he was sleeping. The bullet broke
H. into pieces and three such pieces struck the accused. Both intention and
VASANT VITHU .IADHAV r STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [PASAYAT,.I.] 867
knowledge in tenns of Section 307 can be attributed to the accused. Therefore, A
the High Court was justified in recording conviction of the accused-appellant
under Section 307 IPC.
The residual question is whether the sent~nce is harsh. It is true as
noted by the High Court, a guardian of law took law into his own hands and
in a public place fired a shot. Unless severe punishment is imposed it may B
provide impetus to indisciplined persons in disciplined forces. However, taking
into account the peculiar circumstances of the case and the background facts
highlighted above, we feel custodial sentence of 5 years would have necessarily
.... chastening and deterrent effect on the accused. We do not find infinnity in
the conviction under Section 27 of the Anns Act.
c
The appeal is allowed only in respect of sentence imposed relating to
Section 307 IPC, and for all other aspects it stands dismissed.
v.s.s. Appeal dismissed.
-
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