1. House trespass and attempt to murder using firearms causing grievous injuries and death of an unborn child — Conviction under Sections 452, 307/34, 316/34, and 504, IPC. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 )
Back
Next 
2017 Supreme(SC) 792
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
R.K. Agrawal, Abhay Manohar Sapre, JJ.
Ahsan – Appellants
Versus
State of U.P. – Respondents
Criminal Appeal No. 1525 of 2017 (Arising out of S.L.P.(Crl.)No. 5004 of 2015)
Decided On : 29-08-2017
Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellants :- Ajit Singh Pundir, Arijeet Singh, Advs.
For the Respondents:- Ravi Prakash Mehrotra, Adv.
For the Appellants :- Ajit Singh Pundir, Arijeet Singh, Advs.
For the Respondents:- Ravi Prakash Mehrotra, Adv.
IMPORTANT POINT
When an accused causes hurt while attempting to murder will be liable for life imprisonment.
Headnote:Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 307 – Three accused entering house of victims armed with pistols with intention of killing the family members – Each accused targeting and firing at one member of the family – Appellant firing at head of the victim – Victim seriously injured – appellant causing hurt to victim – Appellant rightly convicted under Part II of section 307 and sentenced to life imprisonment. (Para 24, 27)
(2016) 3 SCC 62 – Distinguished
Facts of the case:
The appellant was convicted and sentenced u/s 452, 307/34, 316/34 and 504, IPC.
The High Court affirmed the conviction.
Finding of the Court:
Appellant has been rightly convicted.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
- crime and sentencing
- practice and procedure
Table of Contents
2. Challenge to quantum of sentence under Section 307, IPC — Contention that survival of victim warrants sentence under first part of Section 307 instead of life imprisonment. (Para 13 , 14 , 15 )
3. Analysis of Section 307, IPC — Evaluation of injury gravity, target organ, and common intention in determining the appropriateness of life imprisonment. (Para 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 23 , 24 )
4. Sentencing under Section 307, IPC depends on whether hurt is caused; life imprisonment is permissible if hurt is caused, considering the nature and gravity of injuries. (Para 19 , 21 , 24 , 25 )
5. Appeal dismissed — Conviction and sentence affirmed. (Para 17 , 27 , 28 )
6. How is the punishment structured under Section 307 of the IPC?
Section 307 provides three punishment classes: imprisonment up to ten years and fine for attempts; life imprisonment or up to ten years if hurt is caused; and death if a life convict causes hurt during the attempt. (Para 18 , 19 )
7. When does the second part of Section 307, IPC apply regarding sentencing?
The second part of Section 307 applies when the person, while committing an act of attempt to murder, causes hurt to any person, making them liable for life imprisonment or the punishment prescribed in the first part. (Para 19 , 21 )
8. What factors should a court consider when determining the quantum of sentence for an offence?
Courts must consider the nature, manner, and gravity of the offence, the motive, the nature of injuries (simple or grievous), the weapons used, and any extenuating circumstances. (Para 25 )
9. Does the survival of a victim preclude the award of life imprisonment under Section 307, IPC?
No. If the act caused hurt, the court may exercise judicial discretion to award life imprisonment, especially if the injury was grievous and targeted a vital organ, regardless of the victim's survival. (Para 23 , 24 )
JUDGMENT
Abhay Manohar Sapre, J.
Leave granted.
2. This appeal is filed by one out of three accused against the final judgment and order dated 21.04.2015 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Criminal Appeal No.615 of 2008 whereby the High Court dismissed the appeal filed by the accused-appellant herein and affirmed the judgment 11.12.2007 of the Additional Sessions Judge, Muzaffar Nagar in Sessions Trial No.746 of 2005 by which the appellant was convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 452, 307/34, 316/34 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as "IPC") and sentenced to seven years' rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs. 5000/- under Section 452 IPC, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo three months' simple imprisonment, imprisonment for life with fine of Rs. 10,000/- under Section 307/34 IPC, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo six months' simple imprisonment, rigorous imprisonment of ten years with fine of Rs. 5000/- under Section 316/34, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo simple imprisonment for three months and two years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs. 1000/- under Section 504 IPC, in default, to further undergo simple imprisonment for one month. All the sentences would run concurrently.
3. Brief facts:
The case of the prosecution is that on 08.10.2004 at about 7.30 p.m., when Iliyas-the Complainant, after having meal, reached near the house of Naseem-his paternal uncle, he heard noise coming out from that house. When Illiyas entered the house, he saw Manshad, Kamil and Ahsan(the appellant), all from the same locality, armed with country made pistols in their hands, abusing his cousin Istekhar @ Dholoo, Shahzad (son-in-law) and Rukhsana, his niece with filthy language and they made fires from their respective pistols with the intention of killing them. The bullet fired by Manshad injured Istekhar, the bullet fired by Kamil caused injury to Rukhsana on her abdomen, who was pregnant and the bullet fired by Ahsan(appellant) injured Shahzad in his head. All of them were in critical state. The incidence was witnessed by Khurshid, Shamshad, Ikram etc. Illiyas had given the `written report' at Police Station, Shamli after getting it written by Bhupendra Singh.
4. On the basis of the written report submitted by Illiyas on 08.10.2004 at 20.45 hrs., F.I.R. case Crime No. 313 of 2004 was registered under Sections 452, 307 and 504 IPC at Police Station Shamli, District Muzaffar Nagar. On the same day, the investigation was conducted by sub-Inspector Vijendra Singh. The site plan was prepared and the statements of the witnesses were recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as "the Code"). The charge-sheet was filed against Manshad and Ahsan for the offences punishable under Sections 452, 307, 316 and 504 IPC. The case was committed to the Court of Sessions for trial on 18.05.2005.
5. The trial was proceeded as S.T. No. 746 of 2005 in the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Mazaffar Nagar. During the pendency of the investigation, Kamil died and Manshad was declared as `juvenile' to be tried separately. Ahsan (appellant herein) was charged for the offences under Sections 452, 307/34, 504 and 316/34 of IPC.
6. By judgment dated 11.12.2007, the Trial Court convicted the appellant for the offences punishable under Sections 452, 307/34, 316/34 and 504 IPC and sentenced him seven years' rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs. 5000/- under Section 452 IPC, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo three months' simple imprisonment, imprisonment for life with fine of Rs. 10,000/- under Section 307/34 IPC, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo six months' simple imprisonment, ten years' rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs. 5000/- under Section 316/34 IPC, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo simple imprisonment for three months and two years' rigorous imprisonment wi
