Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Del) 6416
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Prathiba M. Singh, Madhu Jain, JJ
State of Nct of Delhi – Appellant
Versus
Suraj – Respondent
CRL.A. 600/2017
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Ashmeet Singh
For the Respondents: Anu Narula, Robin Sun, Brajraj Sharma
An appellate court will uphold a conviction for attempted culpable homicide under Section 308 IPC over attempted murder under Section 307 IPC when evidence indicates a sudden, impulsive altercation without premeditation. Probation remains a viable, reformative measure for first-time offenders involved in spontaneous domestic disputes.
Headnote:(A) Code of Criminal Procedure - Sections 377/378 - Indian Penal Code - Sections 307/34, 308/34, 86 - Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 - Attempt to murder vs. Attempt to commit culpable homicide - Determination of intent and knowledge in cases involving sudden altercations - Impact of intoxication on formation of criminal intent - Principles of reformative sentencing for first-time offenders. (Paras 23-30)
(B) Appellate Scope - An appellate court should not interfere with a lower court’s findings when the determination is based on a plausible appreciation of evidence, unless the underlying decision is marked by perversity or manifest illegality. The court must distinguish between calculated criminal intent and spontaneous acts triggered by a sudden flare-up. (Paras 27, 30)
Facts of the case:
A dispute involving a disagreement between family members regarding a spouse returning to their matrimonial home late at night escalated into a physical altercation. Neighbors intervened to mediate the conflict and sustained knife injuries inflicted by the accused. The trial court convicted the accused for attempted culpable homicide instead of attempted murder and released them on probation. The state appealed the conviction and the leniency of the sentence.
Findings of Court:
The court observed that the incident was a spontaneous outgrowth of a domestic quarrel without evidence of premeditation or prior animosity. Although the injuries were serious, the lack of planned intent to cause death supports the classification as attempted culpable homicide. The court found that the trial court's decision to grant probation was a sound application of reformative principles to prevent incarceration of non-hardened individuals.
Issues: Whether the conversion of charges from attempted murder to attempted culpable homicide was legally justified, and whether the grant of probation was appropriate given the gravity of the injuries inflicted.
Ratio Decidendi: Where an incident occurs due to sudden provocation without prior planning, the specialized intent required for murder under Section 307 IPC is not established. Intoxication, while not a defense, serves as a contextual factor in determining the absence of premeditation. Probationary measures are appropriate under the law to encourage rehabilitation for offenders who are not habitual criminals and have acted impulsively.
Result: Appeal dismissed; conviction and sentence upheld.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. appellate jurisdiction over trial court conviction and sentence under ipc sections 307/308. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. establishing the factual sequence of the incident, evidence, and medical reports. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14) |
| 3. contention regarding intent under ipc section 307 vs. sudden provocation and sentencing leniency. (Para 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20) |
| 4. distinguishing attempt to murder from culpable homicide based on circumstances and probation applicability. (Para 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31) |
| 5. final confirmation of conviction, sentence, and closure of judicial proceedings. (Para 32 , 33 , 34 , 35) |
JUDGMENT
MADHU JAIN, J.
1. The present appeal has been preferred by the Appellant/State of NCT of Delhi under Sections 377 /378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter ‘Cr.P.C’), assailing the judgment dated 7th May 2016 and the order on sentence dated 23rd May 2016, passed by ld. ASJ-03, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi, in Sessions Case No. 63/2014 titled State vs. Suraj @ Sanjay & Anr., arising out of FIR No. 173/2013 registered at P.S. Naraina.
2. By way of the impugned judgment, the ld. Trial Court convicted the Respondents for a lesser offence under Sections 308/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter ‘IPC’) instead of Sections 307/34 IPC. Thereafter, vide order on sentence dated 23rd May 2016, the Respondents were released on probation of good conduct for a period of three years upon furnishing personal bonds in the sum of Rs. 10,000/- each with one surety in the like amount. Additionally, Respondent No. 1, Suraj, was directed to pay compensation of Rs. 10,000/- and Respondent No. 2, Ajay, Rs. 5,000/- to the victims. The relevant portion of the conclusion of the Trial Court is set out below:
“28. In the case in hand, it has categorically come on record in the deposition of PW2 Akash Kumar - injured that on the night of 28.07.2013 accused Suraj was under the influence of liquor and it was late in the night therefore, parents of Smt.Chanda were refusing to send her with Suraj. Accused Suraj was abusing and threatening that he would take Chanda with him at all the consequences. At about 01:30 AM when they were asleep accused Suraj along with his brother Ajay and his sister Laxmi (juvenile) again come to the house of Chanda. There were loud noises and abuses being hurled by the accused. Mother of PW2 went upstairs to know the reasons as to why accused was giving abuses. But accused Suraj and his sister began abusing her too saying that "why she is interfering". Despite many requests accused persons did not stop. PW2 also went upstairs and objected the accused. Thereafter, accused Ajay and his sister Laxmi (juvenile) caught hold of PW2 Akash and accused Suraj caused knife blows to PW2. In this scuffle PW3 Vidya also suffered knife injury. Testimony of PW2 has duly been corroborated by the testimonies of PW1 Ankit Kumar, PW3 Vidya, PW5 Sunil Prasad and PW8 Phoolo Devi. All these witnesses have correctly identified the accused persons as culprits who caused knife injuries to the victims namely PW2 Akash and PW3 Vidya. MLCs of injured persons namely PW2 Akash and PW3 Vidya have also been proved on record vide deposition of PW7 Dr. Ajay Sharma and MLC Ex. PW7/A (of injured Vidya) & MLC Ex.PW7/B (of injured Akash). PW10 Dr. Abhishek Gupta has opined the nature of injuries sustained by Vidya as grievous and injuries sustained by Akash as dangerous. Other witnesses as well as police officials are formal in nature. Taking all these facts and circumstances into consideration, I am of the view that question arises whether ingredients of section 307 IPC are met out or not. Section 307 of IPC spells out about attempt to murder. The act done by accused must be with such intention or knowledge, and under such circumstances that, if he by that act caused death, he would be guilty of murder. In the case in hand, it has categorically come on record in the deposit
