STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH versus KEDAR YADAV

Citation: [2006] SUPP. 9 S.C.R. 852 · Decided: 30-11-2006 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Case Partly allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
STA TE OF MADHYA PRADESH 
v. 
KEDARYADAV 
NOVEMBER 30, 2006 
[ARIJIT PASA YAT AND S.H. KAPADIA, JJ.] 
Penal Code, 1860-Section 307-Attempt to murder-Essential 
ingredients of -Stated-On facts, nature of injuries sustained, weapon used 
C and opinion of doctors that the injuries were enough to cause death-Thus, 
conviction of accused under section 307 by trial court justified-However, 
reduction of sentence of ten years rigorous imprisonment to period already 
undergone by High Court in view of relevant aspects of the matter as well as 
long passage of time not justified-Sentence/Sentencing. 
D 
Sentence/Sentencing: 
Imposition of-Duty of court to award proper sentence-Undue sympathy 
in favour of accused, effect of-Object of law behind imposition of appropriate 
sentence-Just and appropriate punishment, criteria for determination-Stated 
E 
Trial court convicted the respondent under section 307 IPC and 
F 
G 
H 
imposed sentence of ten years rigorous imprisonment and fine. The Single 
Judge of High Court upheld the conviction but reduced the sentence to 
the period already undergone. Hence the prese,nt appeal. 
Partly allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. The nature of the injuries sustained, the weapon used 
and the opinion of the doctors to the effect that the injuries were enough 
to cause death, the trial court had rightly convicted the accused-respondent 
for offence punishable under Section 307 IPC. (859-C) 
Kundan Singh v State of Punjab (19821 3 SCC 213, distinguished. 
1.2. High Court was not justified in reducing the sentence to the 
period already undergone. Taking into account all relevant aspects 
including long passage of time which per se is not a ground for reduction 
852 
• 
. ' 
•
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH v. KEDAR YADAV 
853 
in sentence, order of the High Court, so far as it relates to the reduction of A 
period of sentence, is set aside. Respondent would undergo custodial sentence 
for three years subject to such remissions as may be available in law and 
would pay a fine ofRs.10,000/-. (859-D-E) 
Sevaka Perumal etc. v. State of Tamil Naidu AIR (1991) SC 1463, 
relied on. 
Dennis Councle MCGDautha v. State of Callifornia: 402 US 183: 28 
L.D. 2d 711 - referred to. 
B 
2.1. To justify a conviction under section 307 IPC, it is not essential C 
that bodily injury capable of causing death should have been inflicted. 
Although the nature of injury actually caused may often give considerable 
assistance in coming to a finding as to the intention of the accused, 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. 
The Section makes a distinction between an act of the accused and its D 
res11Jt, if any. Such an act may not be attended by any result so far as the 
person assaulted is concerned, but still there may be cases in which the 
culprit would be liable under this Section. It is not necessary that the injury 
actually caused to the victim of the assault should be sufficient under 
ordinary circumstances to cause the death of the person assaulted. What E 
the Court has to see is whether the act, irrespective of its result, was done 
with the intention or knowledge and under circumstances mentioned in 
the Section. An attempt in order to be criminal need not be the penultimate 
act. It is sufficient in law, if there is present an intent coupled with some 
overt act in execution thereof. [857-G-H; 858-A-C) 
F 
2.2. Whether there was intention to kill or knowledge that death will 
be caused is a question of fact and would depend on the facts of a given 
case. The circumstances that the injury inflicted by the accused was simple 
or minor will not by itself rule out application of Section 307 IPC. The 
determinative question is intention or knowledge, as the case may be, and 
not nature of the injury. [858-G-H) 
G 
2.3. Section 307 deals with two situations so far as the sentence is 
concerned. Firstly, 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 H 
854 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006] SUPP. 9 S.C.R. 
A description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be. liable 
to fine; and secondly if hurt is caused to any person by such ad the offender 
shall be liable either to imprisonment for life or to such punishment as 
indicated i
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.