Study on 307 I.P.C.
Download full FR Judgment
Manoj Kumar Gupta Vs State of U.P., Allahabad High Court, Jail Appeal No. 2326 of 2015 Order Dated 18.08.2017

307 I.P.C.. 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 or 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 ensure.
(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 As keeping A has not yet committed the offence defined in this section. A places the food on Zs table or delivers it to Zs servant to place it on Zs table. A has committed the offence defined in this section.

CLASSIFICATION OF OFFENCE
Para I: Punishment—Imprisonment for 10 years and fine—Cognizable—Nonbailable— Triable by Court of Session—Non-compoundable.
Para II: Punishment—Imprisonment for life, or imprisonment for 10 years and fine—Cognizable—Non-bailable—Triable by Court of Session—Noncompoundable.
Para III: Punishment—Death, or imprisonment for 10 years and fine—Cognizable—Non—bailable—Triable by Court of Session—Non-compoundable.

17. Mr. Jagriti Singh, learned Amicus Curiae has submitted that it is the case of the prosecution – who are his wife and father-in-law – sudden provocation – hence no case under Section 307 IPC – as per evidence adduced by the witnesses, the accused-appellant was apprehended on the spot with the help of villagers – injuries were caused by knife, then why the said knife was not recovered from the hand of the accused/appellant or from the place of incident – Investigating Officer has not registered a case under Section 4/25 of the Arms Act – no recovery memo – not sent by the Investigating Officer for scientific test to the Forensic Science Laboratory – injuries were not on vital parts – humans have five vital organs that are essential for survival. These are the brain, heart, kidneys, liver and lungs – injuries were in his abdomen, which is non-vital part – Doctor has not specifically mentioned the dimensions of the injuries – hence there is major contradiction – accused was apprehended with the help of villagers, but no villager has been examined as prosecution witness. Hence, the prosecution has failed to prove it – judgment of the trial court is modified to the extent that the appellant is held guilty of the offence under Section 326 IPC instead of 307 IPC
Manoj Kumar Gupta Vs State of U.P., Allahabad High Court, Jail Appeal No. 2326 of 2015 Order Dated 18.08.2017

VITAL ORGAN — Humans have five vital organs that are essential for survival. These are the brain, heart, kidneys, liver and lungs. The human brain is the bodys control center, receiving and sending signals to other organs through the nervous system and through secreted hormones

CASE LAWS

Intended to cause such injury as he knew to be likely to cause death or intended to inflict an injury which was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death or that he knew that his act was so imminently dangerous that it must in all probability cause death or cause an injury as is likely to cause death. # Page 3 Para 8 fact remains that no vital organ of the body was injured thereby — we do not know how big the chhura was and, therefore, it cannot be said that it was sufficiently for to penetrate the abdomen deep enough to cause an injury to a vital organ which would in the ordinary course of nature be fatal — Incidentally we may point out that Shankar Prasad does not say that after he released the wrist of Sushil the appellant inflicted or even tried to inflict any further injury on him. # Page 3 Para 9
prosecution has not established that the offence committed by the appellant falls squarely under Section 307, I. P. C. In our opinion, it amounts only to an offence under Section 324, I. P. C. # Page 3 Para 10
SC : Sarju Prasad vs State Of Bihar on 20 August, 1964

Non examination of credible independent witnesses — several people were present — do not inspire confidence — no evidence to show any results of forensic examination of the weapon so recovered # Page 10 Para 4
motive — accused four (4) years prior to the incident and it is not a sufficient motive to commit such a heinous crime — no 307 # Page 6 Para 3
SC : Kanakarajan @ Kanakan vs State Of Kerala on 21 April, 2017

Injury are grievous in nature — "whoever does any act with such intention or knowledge" in Section 307, IPC would assume some importance. # Page 12 Para 5
relationship between the parties, from the facts, it cannot be said that he had any requisite intention to do away with the life of PW-1 on the fateful day. But however, there was attack and voluntarily he had caused grievous hurt, and hence, the ingredients of Section 307, IPC as such are not satisfied. # Page 5 Para 16
Andhra High Court : Gurram Sambaiah vs State

No previous history of enmity — occurrence is the outcome of a sudden flare up. # Page 20
No intention to commit murder — no motive — sudden flare up. — sudden quarrel, the conviction under s. 307 is generally not called for. We, therefore, see no reason to disturb the acquittal of accused under s. 307 IPC. # Page 5 Para 2
Rs.50,000 compensation would meet the ends of justice. # Page 7 Para 2
Supreme Court of India : Hari Kishan & Anr vs Sukhbir Singh & Ors on 25 August, 1988

More than 20 persons had gathered — none of them has been examined by the prosecution # Page 4 Para 4
Supreme Court of India : Sukhar vs State Of Uttar Pradesh on 1 October, 1999

Factum of causing grievous hurt though established but conviction under Section 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code in the interest of justice ought to be altered to under Section 326/34 of the Indian Penal Code. # Page 10 Para 1
Supreme Court of India : Lallan Rai & Ors vs State Of Bihar on 14 November, 2002

Declared dangerous to life and injuries — no intention of causing death of any person nor any injuries found on Pal Singh were stated to be sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death — had not committed any offence under Section 307 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code — guilty for an offence under Section 326 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. # Page 2 Para 7
Supreme Court of India : Pashora Singh And Another vs State Of Punjab on 9 October, 1992

Vital part — no evidence that they were sufficient to cause death. So conviction of the accused-appellants for the offence under Section 307, IPC is not correct # Page 44 Para 9
Conviction from 307/149, IPC is altered to 323, 324 read with 149, IPC for causing injuries to Laxman Singh and Mehanga Singh. # Page 4 Para 12
Rajasthan High Court : Kesra And Ors. vs State Of Rajasthan on 17 February, 1999

Clear case of house-trespass and voluntarily causing hurt — under the penal Section of 448 and 324 of I.P.C. and appellant cannot escape the implications there being no evidence to the contrary, suggestion notwithstanding. # Page 3 Para 8
Conviction Under Section 307 I.P.C. is set aside and charge is slided down to one Under Section 324 of I.P.C. on the reasons as stated # Page 6 Para 18
Gauhati High Court : Karunamoy Sarmah vs State Of Assam on 3 October, 2002