LexOM PRAKASH versus THE STATE OF PUNJAB
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
t96I April a4. 254 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1962] OM PARKASH v. THE STATE OF PUNJAB (K. SUBBA RAO and RAGHUBAR DAYAL, JJ.) Criminal Law-Attempt to murder-Accused attempting to starve a person gradually to accelerate his death-/ ngredients of the offence-Indian Penal Code (Act 45 of 1860), ss. 307, 308, 5rr. B was married to the appellant in October, r95r, but their relations got strained by r953. She was ill-treated and her health deteriorated due to mal-treatment and under-nourish- ment. In r956 she was deliberately starved and not allowed to leave the house in which they were living and only sometimes a morsel or so used to be thrown to her as alms are given to beggars. On June 5, r956, she managed to escape from the house and went to the Civil Hospital at Ludhiana. Her brother came down to Ludhiana on learning of the facts and made a complaint to the police. The doctor who attended on B sent a note to the police saying that she was seriously ill and might collapse any moment. The appellant was prosecuted for the offence of attempting to murder B under s. 307 of the Indian Penal Code. The trial Coutt acquitted him but, on appeal, the High Court came to a finding, on the evidence, that the object of the appel- lant was to confine B and deprive her of regular food in pursu- ance of a scheme of regular starvation in order to accelerate her end, and convicted him under s. 307 of the Indian Penal Code. On behalf of the appellant it was contended, inter alia, that whereas under s. 5rr of the Code for an Act to amount to the offence of attempting to commit an offence it need not be the last act and can be the first act towards the commission of the offence, under s. 307 it is the last act which, ii effective to cause death, would constitute the offence of an attempt to com- mit murder, and that even if B had been deprived of food for a certain period, the act of so depriving her did not come under s. 307 a• that act could not, by itself have caused her death, it being necessary for the period of starvation to continue for a longer period to cause death. Held, that a person commits an offence under s. 307 of the Indian Penal Code when he has an intention to commit murder and in pursuance of that intention does an act towards its com• mission irrespective of the fact whether that act is the penulti- mate act or not. Abhayanand Mishra v. The State of Bihar, [r962] 2 S.C.R. 24r, followed. Rex v. White, [rgro] 2 K.B. r24, relied on. Queen v. Nidha, (r892) I.L.R. 14 All. 38 and Emperor v. Vasudeo Balwant Gogte, (r932) I.L.R. 56 Born. 434, considered. 2 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 255 ]eetmal v. State, A.LR. 1950 Madhya Bharat 21, dis- approved, The word 'act' in s. 307 did not mean only a particular act of a person, hut denoted, according to s. 33 of the Code, as well, . a series Of acts. In the present case the course of conduct adopted by the appellant in regularly starving his wife B, comprised a series of acts which though they fell short of completing the series sufficient to kill her, came within the purview of s. 307 of the Indian Penal Code. The High Court was, therefore, right in convicting the appellant under that section. CRIMINAL APPELJ,ATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 177 of 1959. Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated May 23, 1958, of the Punjab High Court in Criminal Appeal No. 515 of 1957. Jai Gopal Sethi and R. L. Kohli, for the appellant. B. K. Khanna, R.H. Debhar and D. Gupta, for the respondent. 1961. April 24. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by I96I Om Parkash v. State of Punjab RAGHUBAR DAYAL, J.-This appeal, by special Raghubar leave, is against the order of the Punjab High Court Dayal J. dismissing the appellant's appeal against his convic- tion under s. 307, Indian Penal Code. Bimla Devi, P. W. 7, was married to the appellant in October, 1951. Their relations got strained by 1953 and she went to her brother's place and stayed there for about a year, when she returned to her husband's pla.ce at the assurance of the appellant's maternal uncle that she would not be maltreated in future. She was, however, ill-treated and her health deteriorated due to alleged maltreatment and deliberate under- nourishment. In 1956, she was deliberately starved and was not allowed to leave the house and only sometimes a. morsel or so used to be thrown to her as alms are given to beggars. She was denied foo
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.