Attempt to Murder - 307 IPC

 

Statue

1. 307 IPC - Attempt to murder
2. 34 IPC - common Intention

Important points

1. Attempt to murder 307 IPC will fall under category of heinous offence, and has to be treated as a crime against the society and not against the individual alone
2. Proceeding u/s 307 IPC cannot be quashed only on ground that the parties have resolved the entire disputes amongst themselves.
3. Quash
1. HC u/s 482 CrPC could be exercised keeping in mind the injuries sustained
2. Injury was inflicted on a vital part of the body, nature of weapons used.
4. Criminal Justice system has a larger objective to achieve, that is safety and protection of people at large and it would be a lesson not only to offender but to the individuals at large so that such crimes would not be committed by any one and money would not be a substitute for the crime committed against the society.
5. The guiding factors is as to whether the ends of justice would justify such exercise of power, both 
1. the ultimate consequences may be a acquittal or 
2. dismissal of indictment

Arguments used for Quash - 482 CrPC

1. Attacked only by kitchen knife
2. Entered into compromise 
3. money already paid
4. Distantly related
5. To ensure both sides lived peacefully 

Case Law

1. State of Rajasthan vs Shambhu Kewat (2014) 4 SCC 149
1. 307 IPC is serious offence and ordinarily should not be quashed by HC while exercising its power under section 482 CrPC on the ground that parties have settled their dispute
2. Narinder Singh Vs State of Punjab (2014) 6 SCC 466
1. SC quashed 307 IPC after noticing judgment in Kewat 
2. matter was referred to larger bench
3. court may be justified on its own facts, at the same time this court ows an explanation as why two different approaches are adopted in various cases
3. State of MP Vs Laxmi Narayan (2019) 5 SCC 688  - issue was resolved
1. 307 IPC - heinous offence
2. Treated as crime against society and not against individual alone 

Discharge Burden u/s 106 IEA

 

Statue

1. Section 101 of IEA
1. Whoever desires any court to give a judgment as to a liability dependent on the existence of facts, he MUST prove those facts exist.
2. 106 Indian Evidence Act
1. Burden of proving fact especially within knowledge - when any fact is especially within the knowledge of any person, the burden of proving that fact is upon him.
3. 
   

Important Points

1. Failure to discharge burden under section 106 of IEA 1872, is NOT RELEVANT in a case governed by circumstantial evidence, IF prosecution is unable to establish a chain of circumstances.
2. Circumstantial Evidence - the prosecution has to establish chain of circumstances
1. When chain is not complete, the falsity of the defense is NO GOUND to convict the accused.
3. Application of 106 IEA
1. Applies to those cases where the prosecution has succeeded in establishing the facts 
2. FROM which a reasonable inference can be drawn regarding the existence of certain other facts which are within the special knowledge of the accused.
3. When accused FAILS to offer proper explanation about the existence of said other facts, 
4. Court can always draw an appropriate inference.
4. Section 106 constitutes an EXCEPTION to section 101.
5. Section 106 is NOT INTENDED to relieve prosecution relieve it of that duty of burden of Proof.
1. On the contrary, it is designed to meet certain exceptional cases in which it would be impossible or at any rate dispoportionately difficult for the prosecution to establish facts which are especially within knowledge of the accused and which he could prove without difficulty or inconvenience. 

Case Laws

1. Sharad Birdhichand Sarda Vs State of Maharastra (1984) 4 SCC 116
1. Para 153 - Panchsheel - 5 Golden Principles
1. A close analysis of this decision would show that the following conditions must be fulfilled before a case against an accused can be said to be fully established
1. The circumstances from which the conclusion of the guilt is to be drawn should be FULLY established.
2. The facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is to say they SHOULD NOT be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty.
3. The circumstances SHOULD be of a conclusive nature and tendency
4. They should EXCLUDE every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved
5. there must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probability the act must have been done by accused.
2. Shambu Nath Mehra Vs The State of Ajmer 
1. Section 106 is an exception to Section 101. Section 101 lays down the general rule about the burden of proof. 
1. Illustrations (a)
1. A desires a court to give Judgment that B shall be punished for a crime which A says B has committed
2. A must prove that B has committed the crime

Life Imprisonment

 

Summary

1. Imprisonment for life is equivalent to Rigorous Imprisonment for life

Case Law 

1. Niab Singh Vs State of Punjab, (1983) 2 SCC 454
1. Imprisonment for life is Rigorous Imprisonment for life
2. In view of the authoritative pronouncements made by Privay Council and this Court in Kishori Lal vs Emperor, AIR 1945 PC 64: 72 IA 1, Gopal Vinayak Godse vs State of Maharastra, AIR 1961 SC 600
2. Gopal Vinayak Godse vs State of Maharastra, AIR 1961 SC 600
3. Kishori Las Vs Emperor, 1961 3 SCR 440

Questions

1. what is Rigorous Imprisonment?