Impossible attempt
mukesh
(Querist) 08 February 2012
This query is : Resolved
A POURED A WHITE POWDER [in fact it was suger] IN THE MILK OF B, TAKING IT TO BE POISION. B DID NOT DIED. A IS PROSECUTED UNDER SEC. 307 IPC
Q. WHETHER A IS LIABLE U/S 307, THOUGH THE ATTEMPT WAS IMPOSSIBLE ONE, AS NO ONE COULD DIE BY SUGER.
ajay sethi
(Expert) 08 February 2012
appears to be a hypothetical case . before filing case police must have investiaged and checked the white powder . if it was found to be sugar no case would have been lodged
Devajyoti Barman
(Expert) 08 February 2012
Academic or hypothetical query and hence ignored by me.
Raja
(Expert) 08 February 2012
Section 307. 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 of 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 1[imprisonment for life], or to such punishment as is hereinbefore mentioned.
Attempts by life convicts.—2[When any person offending under this section is under sentence of 1[imprisonment for life], he may, if hurt is caused, be punished with death.]
llustrations
(a) A shoots at Z with intention to kill him, under such circumÂstances 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 ensue.
(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 3[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 A’s keeping; A has not yet committed the offence defined in this section. A places the food on Z’s table or delivers it to Z’s servant to place it on Z’s table. A has committed the offence defined in this section.
CLASSIFICATION OF OFFENCE
Para I
Punishment—Imprisonment for 10 years and fine—Cognizable—Non-bailable—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 SesÂsion—Non-compoundable.
Para III
Punishment—Death, or imprisonment for 10 years and fine—Cognizable—Non-bailable—Triable by Court of Session—Non-compoundable.
COMMENTS
Knowledge
The intention of knowledge of the accused must be such as is necessary to constitute murder; Hari Kishan and State of Haryana v. Sukhbir Singh, (1989) Cr LJ 116: AIR 1988 SC 2127.
Scope and applicability
(i) The question of intention to kill or the knowledge of death in terms of section 307, is a question of fact and not one of law. It would all depend on the facts of a given case; Vasant Virthu Jadhav v. State of Maharashtra, (1997) 2 Crimes 539 (Bom).
(ii) The important thing to be borne in mind in determining the question whether an offence under section 307, is made out is the intention and not the injury (even if simple or minor); Vasant Virthu Jadhav v. State of Maharashtra, (1997) 2 Crimes 539 (Bom).
(iii) It is not necessary that injury, capable of causing death, should have been inflicted. What is material to attract, the provisions of section 307 is the guilty intention or knowledge with which the all was done, irrespective of its result. The intention and knowledge are the matters of inference from totality of circumstances and cannot be measured merely from the results; Ansarudin v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (1997) 2 Crimes 157 (MP).
V R SHROFF
(Expert) 09 February 2012
Academic or hypothetical query and hence ignored by me.
R.Ramachandran
(Expert) 09 February 2012
Dear Mr. Sethi,
It seems to be a moot problem. Mr.Mukesh must first clear the fact first.
prabhakar singh
(Expert) 09 February 2012
Gone are those days when much of our time used to be killed in fantasies like these.
Deepak Nair
(Expert) 09 February 2012
Get a commentary on criminal major act by Ratanlal and Dhirajlal and do some research.
That is all i can advise you.
Shonee Kapoor
(Expert) 10 February 2012
It is 307 r/w 511, if it can be proved that the person mistook it as poison.
Regards,
Shonee Kapoor
harassed.by.498a@gmail.com
