2025 Supreme(SC) 1677

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
J.B. PARDIWALA, R. MAHADEVAN, JJ.
Maniklal Sahu – Appellant
Versus
State of Chhattisgarh – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 5578 of 2024
Decided On : 12-09-2025

IMPORTANT POINT
(1) Attempt to commit murder – Most important ingredient to constitute offence of attempt to commit murder punishable under Section 307 of IPC is intention or knowledge.
(2) Attempt to commit murder – Theory of causation should be kept within reasonable limits at both ends – Where death is delayed due to later complications or developments, courts should consider nature of injury, complications or attending circumstances.

Headnote:

(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 307 – Attempt to commit murder – Conviction and sentence – Deceased died due to complications from paraplegia following spinal cord injury which resulted in systemic infection and multi-organ failure – Deceased also suffered from pneumonia which was direct result of long drawn medical treatment – Ocular version of eyewitnesses corroborates with medical evidence on record – Injuries suffered by deceased were sufficient in ordinary course of nature to cause death and would come under clause “Thirdly” of Section 300 of IPC – High Court committed serious error in bringing case within ambit of attempt to commit murder punishable under Section 307 of IPC on the ground that victim survived for almost nine months from date of incident and died on account of pneumonia and other complications during course of treatment and not due to injuries suffered at the time of assault – Appeal dismissed. (Paras 19, 20, 21, 67, 70 and 71)

(B) Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 307 – Attempt to commit murder – Ingredients – Most important ingredient to constitute offence of attempt to commit murder punishable under Section 307 of IPC is intention or knowledge – To bring home guilt against accused under this provision, it is necessary for prosecution to establish that intention of accused was one of three kinds mentioned in Section 300 of IPC – A person commits an offence under Section 307 of IPC when he has intention to commit murder and in pursuance of that intention, does an act towards its commission irrespective of fact whether that act is penultimate act or not – Causing injury that would endanger life is not an essential condition for applicability of Section 307 of IPC – Even if injuries inflicted are simple in nature, that by itself cannot be a ground for acquittal, if offence otherwise falls under Section 307 of IPC – Intention is a state of mind which cannot be proved by direct evidence as a fact; it can only ordinarily be inferred from proved facts – It may be proved by res gestae, by acts or events previous or subsequent to incident or occurrence, or on admission. (Paras 30, 31 and 32)

(C) Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 307 – Attempt to commit murder – To justify a conviction under Section 307 IPC it is not essential that bodily injury capable of causing death should have been inflicted – Although, nature of injury actually caused may often give considerable assistance in coming to a finding as to intention of accused, yet 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 – Provision makes a distinction between an act of accused and its result – What courts have to see is whether act, irrespective of its result, was done with intention or knowledge and under circumstances mentioned in the provision – An attempt in order to be criminal need not be penultimate act – It is sufficient in law if there is present an intent coupled with some overt act in execution thereof – Offence under Section 307 IPC is made out even though death does not ensue, more pertinently, even if no harm ensues – Assault shall be capable of causing death. (Paras 34, 35 and 37)

(D) Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 307 – Attempt to commit murder – Application of Theory of Causation where death ensues after some delay – Theory of causation should be kept within reasonable limits at both ends – Where death is delayed due to later complications or developments, courts should consider nature of injury, complications or attending circumstances – If complications or developments are natural, or probable, or necessary consequence of injury, and if it is reasonably contemplated as its result, injury could be said to have caused death – If on other hand, chain of consequences is broken, or if there is unexpected complication causing new mischief, relation of cause and effect is not established, or causal connection is too remote then injury cannot be said to have caused death – If original injury itself is of a fatal nature, it makes no difference that death is actually caused by a complication naturally flowing from injury and not injury itself, since causal connection is proximate – If supervening causes are attributable to injuries caused, then person inflicting injuries is liable for causing death, even if death was not direct result of injuries. [Paras 40 and 69(i)]

Facts of the case:

Present appeal is at instance of a convict accused and is directed against judgment and order passed by High Court of Chhattisgarh dated 30.07.2024 in Criminal Appeal No. 607 of 2023 by which High Court partly allowed Criminal Appeal filed by appellant and altered conviction of appellant under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code into one under Section 307 of IPC.

Findings of Court:

We do not agree with the view expressed by the High Court in Impugned Judgment and order.

Result : Appeal dismissed.