Section 307 Of Indian Penal Code

KEY TAKEAWAYS

• An attempt is a crime that has not yet been completed. Even though the crime is not fully committed, the mere effort to do so constitutes a crime.
• The essentials of section 307 IPC are
• Section 307 is a non- cognizable, non- bailable and non-compoundable.
• It is more necessary to prove the accused's intention to kill the victim than the act of killing in to convict them under this section.
• If an attempt to commit murder results in some injury to an individual, the person will be sentenced to jail for a period ranging from 10 years to life.
• The second part of Section 307 mandates the death penalty for a life- sentenced person who attempts to cause bodily injury capable of causing death while also causing harm to another person.
• The constitutional validity of section 307 of Indian Penal Code was discussed in the case J Punarao vs State Of AP, where it was argued that there were two sentences for the same offence.
• If there are reasonable grounds, an appeal may be filed in a higher court.

INTRODUCTION

A crime is an act or omission that is punishable by the state and is committed against the general public.This may be any act that a society's representatives have considered illegal. There are four stages of crime: intention, preparation, attempt, and completion of the crime.

The intention together with some act of preparation to achieve that intention amounts to crime as it is an attempt to commit a crime. An attempt is a crime that has not yet been completed. Even though the crime is not fully committed, the mere effort to do so constitutes a crime. In the Indian penal code, the word "attempt" is not specified.It is regarded as a direct step made after all appropriate preparations have been made.When opposed to the planning stage, the attempt stage is thought to have a higher level of intensity.

As previously stated, a person's motive does not make him an offender; however, any intentional behavior in furtherance of that intention that can be seen, heard, witnessed, or analyzed is considered a crime. After all, it is an extension of his nefarious mind and thoughts. As a result, "inchoate crimes" or "inchoate offences" are described as crimes that are not complete in themselves but reveal the accused's motive and are against the law.

One of the few inchoate offences in the Indian penal code that is made illegal by the code itself is "attempt." These are punishable because inchoate crimes are described as "crimes committed by performing an act with the intent of committing another crime."

These crimes are similar to steps taken in the preparation of committing the main crime, but they vary in context from what the word inchoate means in general. This is one of the reasons why these types of crimes are also punishable under the law. As a result, they are referred to as "anticipatory crimes" or "preliminary crimes."

According to section 307 of the Indian penal code,

“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 mentioned”.

The supreme court in State of Maharashtra v. Mohd Yakub (1980) 3 SCC 57stated that attempting to define an attempt is unnecessary. The accused reaches the attempt stage when he or she makes a deliberate effort to commit the crime, and this overt act does not have to be the final act.

Essential Ingredients for Attempt to Murder under Section 307 of Indian Penal Code

The word "attempt" is also interchanged with "preparation."This is another area of criminal law where the essentials play a significant role in deciding what constitutes an attempt and what constitutes mere planning.

1. Nature: The attempted act should be of such a magnitude that if it is not detected or intercepted, the victim will die.

2. Intention or knowledge: The motive to kill must be established beyond a reasonable doubt.The prosecutor may use situations such as an assault by deadly arms on the victim's body parts to prove this, but the intention to kill cannot be determined solely by the severity of the damage caused to the victim.

3. Performance or execution: The accused's motive and knowledge that resulted in the attempted murder must also be proven to be convicted under this clause.

As a result, if the above criteria are met, it can be shown that the act was an attempt to commit a particular crime or crimes, and therefore is punishable.To put it another way, the punishable act occurs when the planning stops and the effort to obtain the desired outcome begins.This act does not have to be "the penultimate act," but it must be "towards the commission of the crime."more

Kaluram vs State of Assam is an important case that shows that the nature of the injury helps in deciding the accused's motive. In this case, the accused had a deadly weapon but only inflicted minor injuries on the victim, clearly demonstrating that he had no intention to kill and therefore he was not convicted under section 307 IPC.

In cases such as Kiran Kumar vs. State of Gujarat , where the accused stabbed the stomach near the navel region with a large knife blade, the court accurately rules that it is a case of attempted murder rather than grievous.

However, the nature of the injury is not necessarily used to determine the motive, i.e., a very serious injury does not need to be caused to prove attempted murder; even a minor injury done with the intent would be enough to convict the individual under section 307.The most contentious point is that even though an accident may have caused death in the ordinary course, but was not performed with the intent to kill, the accused would not be found guilty under section 307.

In the case of Kuldip Singh vs State , the accused attempted to strike the victim with a naked sword, but the victim was saved and the blow only caused the minor injury; however, the court found the accused guilty under section 307 Indian Penal Code due to the dangerous weapon used, which revealed the accused's intention to kill the victim.

Scope of section 307 of IPC

The offence of attempting to kill is covered by Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code.This section applies when a person takes an action that, in the ordinary course of things, would result in the death of another individual, but did not due to some reason or another.

Illustration: A has planned to murder B and arrange a poison with a clear intention to mix it in B’s coffee. Until A has served the coffee, he has not committed any offence. However, if he gives the poisoned coffee to B’s maid to give it to B, then A has committed an offence of attempt to murder under section 307 of IPC.

Nature of offence under section 307

o Cognizable: There are two types of offences: cognizable and non-cognizable. A cognizable offence is required by statute for the police to register and investigate.
o Non-Bailable: A magistrate has the right to deny bail and remand a person to judicial or police custody in a complaint filed under Section 307.
o Non-Compoundable: The petitioner cannot cancel a non-compoundable case at any time.

‘Intention’ under section 307 of Indian Penal Code

It is more necessary to prove the accused's intention to kill the victim than the act of killing in to convict them under this section. To be found guilty under Section 307, a person's attempt to murder the victim must be motivated by a real desire to murder the victim.

The type of weapon used, how it was used, the crime's motive, the seriousness of the blow, and the part of the body where the injury was inflicted are all factors used to assess the accused's intent under this clause.As a result, if the accused has a dangerous weapon but only inflicted minor injuries on the victim, the accused would not be charged under section 307 of the Indian Penal Code. Similarly, if the accused uses a large knife blade to stab the victim in the stomach above the navel, the accused may be charged with attempted murder.

The nature of the injury, on the other hand, is not always a reliable indicator of motive, as a very serious injury need not be sustained in an attempt to murder. Even if the injury is minor, it may be sufficient to convict the accused under section 307 of the Indian Penal Code if it was done with the intent to kill anyone. As a result, an offence of attempted murder cannot be charged under the IPC unless the accused has the motive or intelligence to murder the victim.

In the case of Shiv Singh vs State , medical evidence was used in deciding the accused's intent; the weapon used was lethal, but the wound caused was minor, so the court ruled that the accused would be held responsible under section 324 rather than section 307.

In the case of Jai Narain vs. State of Bihar , the court determined that the fact that four or five people assaulted a person with dangerous weapons demonstrated their intent to kill that person, and therefore they would be held liable under 307.Read the case

Punishment for Attempt to Murder under Section 307 IPC

According to the Indian Penal Code, the penalty for attempted murder varies depending on the severity of the crime and whether or not the attacker is a life prisoner. If an attempt to commit murder results in some injury to an individual, the perpetrator will be sentenced to jail for a period ranging from 10 years to life. It may also be followed by a penalty. If a person who is either a life-convict or has been convicted of life imprisonment commits an act with the intent to kill another person (and in the process injures him or her), he or she will be sentenced to death.

•Attempt to Murder- 10 years + Fine
•If such an act caused Hurt to that person- Imprisonment for Life or 10 Years + Fine
•Attempt to Murder by life convict to murder, if hurt is caused- Death or 10 Years + Fine

In the case Rambabu Vs. The state of Madhya Pradesh 2019 The appellant was found guilty of violating Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code. The court sentenced him to five years in jail and imposed a fine of Rs. 5000. The court found the appellant guilty of violating Section 307 and refused to grant bail. The Court also decided that any injury to the other person, no matter how serious, would be punishable under Section 307. Both accidents will be considered crimes, and the perpetrator will be kept accountable.

Attempts by Life Convicts under Section 307 of IPC

The second part of Section 307 mandates the death penalty for a life- sentenced person who attempts to cause bodily injury capable of causing death while also causing harm to another person. Section 307, which uses the word ‘may' instead of ‘shall,' states that if a person is sentenced to life in prison for an offence under this section, he may be sentenced to death. However, if such conditions are met and the Court is confident that the ends of justice are served by reducing the sentence, the court has the authority to reduce the sentence. Section 307 is a cognizable offence, and a warrant should be given in the first place. It is not bailable or compoundable, and it can only be tried by the Court of Sessions.

Constitutional Validity of Section 307

The issue regarding constitutional validity was raised inJ Punarao vs State Of AP , where it was argued that there were two sentences for the same offence, the first being life imprisonment and the second being ten years rigorous imprisonment, and that there was no provision in the Code of Criminal Procedure to retransfer the case to the Sessions Judge when it was assigned to him.

In that case, the Assistant Session judge must determine the case, and he does not have the authority to sentence the defendant to more than 10 years in prison under the code's procedure. However, if the accused is tried by a sessions judge, he or she can be sentenced to life in prison for the same crime. As a result, it was claimed that this was a violation of the constitution's Article 14.

The Andhra Pradesh High Court, on the other hand, rejected this claim, providing perfectly good reasons to resolve this ostensibly good legal issue. The court explained that if the assistant session's judge believes that the accused merits a sentence that he is unable to impose, he can still refer the case to the Sessions Judge. As a result, these cannot be considered discriminatory or in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution.

The High Court determined that section 307 contemplated two scenarios: one in which the victim was injured and another in which the victim was not injured. Accordingly, the legislature differentiated between the punishments that were to be given under this section based on the status of the victim, that is, if the victim was injured in the attack, the accused was sentenced to life in prison or ten years in prison with a fine, and in cases where the victim was not injured, the accused was sentenced to life in prison or ten years in prison with a fine.

Is section 307 of Indian Penal Code, dangerous to life?

Appeal for a case under section 307 of the Indian Penal Code

If there are reasonable grounds, an appeal may be filed in a higher court. Session Court will hear an appeal from the district/magistrate court. An appeal may be taken from the Session court to the High Court, and from the High Court to the Supreme Court.If the situation demands, both the wife and the accused can file an appeal.

Any person who has been convicted on a trial before a Sessions judge or an Additional Sessions Judge, or on a trial before any other court, and has received a sentence of imprisonment for more than 7 years against him or against another person in the same trial, may appeal to the High Court.

Conclusion

After reviewing the decisions in different cases, section 307 IPC is very ambiguous in terms of the grounds for an accused's conviction. There is a common element that must be present for a conviction under this section, and that element is motive, as well as awareness and inference of the act committed. The fact that the plan to commit murder and the planning for the act must be present is agreed upon by all courts.

The issue of proving the motive, on the other hand, is an area where the courts disagree. The distinction is that courts say that the nature of the accident, the nature of the weapon used, and the planning are taken into consideration when proving the accused's motive, but interestingly, the courts reach different conclusions about these evidence. That is, in some cases, courts have ruled that even though the weapon used was lethal but only caused a minor wound, the accused cannot be charged under section 307, while in others, courts have ruled that even though no injury is caused, the accused can be convicted if intent to kill is proven.

This is contradicting in nature. The court also ruled in one case that forced hunger can be charged under section 307.The query of this section's constitutional validity was a reasonable one, and the Andhra Pradesh High Court answered it with a straightforward response. The extent of the injuries and the weapons used are just a few of the clues that the judiciary uses to conclude the accused's motive.As a result, even if no injury is caused, a person may be found guilty under this clause. In terms of constitutional validity, this provision does not violate Articles 14 and 21 of the constitution, and hence it is completely legal.