Source: Supreme Court

Why in News?

Justice Vikram Nath and Ahsanuddin Amanullah observed that the conviction under Section 307, Indian Penal Code,1860(IPC) is unsustainable as there is no allegation of repeated or severe blows having been inflicted.

• The Supreme Court gave this judgment in the case of Sivamani and Anr.v. State Represented by Inspector of Police.

What is the Background of Sivamani and Anr.v. State Represented by Inspector of Police Case?

• The appellants along with three others were named by the complainant in First Information Report (FIR) dated 15^th September 2012 under Sections 294(b), 323, 324, 452 and 307 read with Section 109 of the IPC accusing them of a conspiracy to cause the death of the complainant.
• 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 of 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.
• Hence, the appellant appealed in the SC.

What was the Court’s Observation?

• 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’ favor. As such, the conviction under Section 307, IPC is unsustainable.

What is Section 307of IPC?

• About:
  • Section 307 of IPC deals with ‘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.

What is the Landmark Judgment Cited in the Case?

• Jage Ram v. State of Haryana (2015):
  • Supreme Court had 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.