Case Comment

OMKAR SINGH VS STATE OF PUNJAB

AVINASH DANGWAL
BALLB(H) | 2ND YEAR
 Law of Crimes

Contents
INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................................... 2
FACTS ................................................................................................................................... 2
DECISION ............................................................................................................................. 4
ANALYSIS ................................................................................................................................ 6
Main ingredients for conviction under Section 307 ............................................................... 6
Act must be capable of causing death ................................................................................ 6
Intention ............................................................................................................................. 7
Ambiguity in the law ............................................................................................................. 8
CONCLUSION ........................................................................................................................ 10
Bibliography ............................................................................................................................ 11

1
 Law of Crimes

INTRODUCTION
The word “attempt” is defined as “to make an effort or complete”1. But when an
individual try to attempt to murder someone it becomes a grave and heinous crime
punishable by law. Section 307 of Indian Penal Code defines attempt to murder.

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. -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.2

In Omkar Singh vs State of Punjab3, the judgement by the two-judge bench of Justice
K. Subba Rao and Justice Raghubar Dayal of Supreme Court delivered a landmark
judgement which removed the ambiguity in the law. This judgement is referred in 26
cases, and very recently in Suresh Chandra & ors. v. State of UP4 since then.

FACTS
In this case, Bimla Devi, 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 place at the assurance of the appellant’s
maternal uncle that she would not be maltreated in the 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 at her as alms are given to

1
Attempt, OXFORD LIVING DICTIONATIES (Nov. 30, 2017, 02:49 p.m.),
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/attempt.
2
The Indian Penal Code, 1860, No. 45, 1860 (India).
3
A.I.R. 1961. S.C. 1782.
4
2015. LawSuit(All). 16.

2
 Law of Crimes

the beggars. She was denied food for days together and used to be given gram husk
mixed with water after five or six days. She managed to go out of the house in April
1956, but Romesh Chander and Suresh Chander, brothers of the appellants, caught hold
of her and forcibly dragged her inside the house where she was severely beaten.
Thereafter, she was kept locked inside the room.

On June 5, 1956, she happened to find her room unlocked, her mother-in-law and
husband away and, availing of the opportunity, went out of the house and managed to
reach the civil hospital, Ludhiana, where she met lady Doctor Mrs. Kumar, and told her
of her sufferings. The appellant and his mother went to the hospital and tried their best
to take her back to the house, but were not allowed to do so by the lady doctor. Social
workers got interested in the matter and informed the brother of Bimla Devi, Madan
Mohan, who came down to Ludhiana, and after learning all facts, sent information to
the police station by a letter on June 16, 1956. In his letter he said:

“My sister Bimla Devi Sharma is lying on her death bed. Her condition is very serious.
I am told by her that deliberate attempt has been made by her husband, mother-in-law
and brother-in-law and sister-in-law. I was told that she was kept locked in the room
for a long time and was beaten by all the above and was starved.

I therefore request that a case may be registered, and her statement be recorded,
immediately.”

The same day, at 9:15 p.m. Dr Miss Dalbir Dhillon sent a note to the police saying. My
patient Bimla Devi is ill. She may collapse any moment”.

Shri Sehgal, recorded her statement that night and stated in his note:

“Blood transfusion is going taking place through the right forearm and consequently
the right hand of the patient id not free. It is not possible to get the thumb impression
of the right-hand thumb of the patient. That is why I have got her left-hand thumb
impression”.

3
 Law of Crimes

DECISION
The impression formed by the learned High Court judge on seeing the photograph of
Bimla Devi taken a few days later, he said in his judgement:

“impression I formed by looking at the photographs of Bimla Devi was that at the time
she appeared to be suffering from extreme emaciation. Her cheeks appeared to be
hollow. The projecting bones of her body with little flesh on them made her appearance
skeletal. The countenance seems to be cadaverous”.

And considering the evidence of Bimla Devi and the doctors, the learned judge
concluded:

“So far as the basic allegations are concerned, which formed the gravamen of the
offence, the veracity of her statement cannot be doubted. After a careful scrutiny of her
statement, I find her allegations as to starvation, maltreatment, etc. true. The
exaggerations and omissions to which my attention was drawn in her statement are
inconsequential”.

After considering the entire evidence on record, the learned judge declared:

“I cannot accept the argument of the learned counsel of the accused that the condition
of acute emaciation in which Bimla Devi was found on 5th June 1956, was not due to
any calculated starvation but it was on account of prolonged illness, the nature of which
was unknown to the accused till Dr. Gulati expressed his opinion that she was suffering
from tuberculosis”.

Also,

“The story of Bimla Devi as to how she was ill-treated, and how, her end was attempted
to be brought about, is convincing, despite the novelty of the method in which the object
is sought to be achieved…. The conduct of the accused and his mother on 5th June 1956
when soon after Bimla Devi’s admission in the hospital they insisted on taking her back
home, is significant and almost tell-tale. It was not for the better treatment or for any
treatment that they wanted to take her back home. The real reason in doing so could be
no other than to accelerate her end”.

4
 Law of Crimes

The accused was found guilty of an offence as per Section 307 IPC, the counsel for the
accused later challenged the decision in the Supreme Court as per Article 1365 of the
constitution. Supreme Court again upheld the decision of the High Court and found the
appellant guilty of section 307, i.e. attempt to murder and dismissed his plea.

This comment will argue that the Supreme Court has applied correct reasoning while
interpreting section 307 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 and came to right conclusion while
delivering the judgement of Omkar Singh v. State of Punjab. Also, this comment will
explore the ambit and essential ingredients of section 307 IPC, and how the judgement
from the Supreme Court set the precedent to follow for years to come and removed the
ambiguity in the law that was prevalent earlier with so many attempts to murder cases
were charged with section 3006 read with section 5117 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860
e.g. Queen-Empress v. Nidha8. The comment will further discuss all the referred cases
and their application to the facts of the present case and will try to bring forth that the
wisdom of the judges prevailed and gave a wise decision in Omkar Singh case.

5
Special leave to appeal by the Supreme Court
(1) Notwithstanding anything in this Chapter, the Supreme Court may, in its discretion, grant special leave to
appeal from any judgment, decree, determination, sentence or order in any cause or matter passed or made by
any court or tribunal in the territory of India
(2) Nothing in clause (1) shall apply to any judgment, determination, sentence or order passed or made by any
court or tribunal constituted by or under any law relating to the Armed Forces.
6
Murder. -Except in the cases hereinafter excepted, culpable homicide is murder, if the act by which the death
is caused is done with the intention of causing death.
7
Punishment for attempting to commit offences punishable with imprisonment for life or other imprisonment.—
Whoever attempts to commit an offence punishable by this Code with 1[imprisonment for life] or imprisonment,
or to cause such an offence to be commit-ted, and in such attempt does any act towards the commission of the
offence, shall, where no express provision is made by this Code for the punishment of such attempt, be punished
with 2[imprisonment of any description provided for the offence, for a term which may extend to one-half of the
imprisonment for life or, as the case may be, one-half of the longest term of imprison-ment provided for that
offence], or with such fine as is provided for the offence, or with both.
8
(1892). I.L.R. 14 All. 38.

5
 Law of Crimes

ANALYSIS
Indian Penal Code defines attempt to murder in Section 3079. 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. For purposes of criminal
liability, it is sufficient if the attempt had gone so far that the crime would have been
completed but for extraneous intervention which frustrated its consummation10.

Main ingredients for conviction under Section 307

In order to constitute an offence under section 307, two elements are essential. First,
the intention or knowledge to commit murder. Secondly, the actual act of trying to
commit the murder.11. Thus, it must have both the necessary mens rea and actus reus.
However, an attempt, in order to be criminal, need not be the penultimate act
foreboding death. It is sufficient that there is present an intention to commit homicide
coupled with some overt act in execution thereof. Such an overt act would have
accomplished the intended crime had there been no extraneous and unanticipated
interventions that frustrated its consummation.

Act must be capable of causing death

In case before the Bombay High Court12, the victim has received several head injuries,
which were described by the doctor as dangerous and were likely to cause death. The
doctor did not state that the injury was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to

9
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.]
10
Sukendra Debnati, Punishment for attempt to commit murder, SHAREYOURESSAYS (Nov 30, 2017,
02:55pm), http://www.shareyouressays.com/knowledge/punishment-for-attempt-to-commit-murder-section-
307-of-ipc/119089.
11
Sumersimbh v. State of Karnataka, A.I.R. S.C. 2161.
12
State of Maharashtra v. Bodya Ramji Patil, (1978) CrLj, 411(Bom).

6
 Law of Crimes

cause death, which alone will bring it within the purview of s 300, IPC. In this case
the high court rejected the offence under Section 307.

However, an accused charged under Section 307 cannot be acquitted merely because
the injuries inflicted on him were simple hurt. The determination factor is intention or
knowledge and not the nature of injury13. Nevertheless, the nature of injury caused
render considerable assistance to the court in finding the intention of the accused.
However, it can ascertain intention from other circumstances, even without the
reference of actual wounds.

In the present case the victim, Bimla Devi was kept locked in the room by her in-laws
she was deliberately starved and was not allowed to leave the house and only
sometimes a morsel or so used to be thrown at her as alms are given to the beggars.
She was denied food for days together due to which her health deteriorated, and it is
sufficient to say if she had not fled from the house on 5th June 1956 she probably
would have died in a few days’ time. And Doctor’s diagnosis report that said the
victim had Tuberculosis on which the appellant’s counsel based his argument, does
not warrant any good because the appellant and his mother tried to take her back from
the hospital, it only tells that they wanted to keep her away from the medical treatment
which goes on to show that the real object in doing so could be no other than to
accelerate her end. The word act, does not mean any only any particular, specific,
instantaneous act of a person, but denotes as per Section 3314 of the code, a series of
acts. The course of conduct adopted by the appellant in regularly starving Bimla Devi
comprise a series of acts and therefore acts falling short of completing the series, and
would come therefore within the purview of Section 307 of Indian Penal Code.

Intention
The words “such intention” found in section 307, refers to intention mentioned in
section 300. It means: (1) intention to cause death; (2) intention to cause bodily injury,

13
Ratan Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2009) 12 SCC 585.
14
The word “act” denotes as well a series of acts as a single act: the word “omission” denotes as well a series of
omissions as a single omission.

7
 Law of Crimes

which is likely to cause death; (3) intention to cause bodily injury which, which is
sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death.

Considering the facts of the present case, point (3) fits aptly, there was undoubtedly
intention from the side of the appellant and his family to accelerate her end for which
they first locked her in a room and starved her for days and when she escaped they
forcibly dragged her inside and beat her badly. Also, the appellant’s behaviour when
she was in the hospital on 5th June 1956, says everything. And in order to come to the
judgement the Honourable judges relied on a Bombay case- Regina v. Francis
Cassidy15, in which it was held that in order to constitute an offence of attempt to
murder, under Section 307, the act committed by the person must be an act capable of
causing, in natural and ordinary course of events, death. Both actus reus and mens rea
are present in the case, hence, the conviction of the appellant under Section 307 IPC
is justified.

Ambiguity in the law

In this case, the appellant counsel Jai Gopal Sethi, referred several judgements
towards the bench which clearly indicated the confusion in the law. The prominent
case mentioned is as follows: -

 Queen- Empress v. Nidha16

In this case Nidha, who had been absconding, noticing certain chowkidars arrive,
brought up a sort of blunderbuss he was carrying, to the hip and pulled the trigger.
The cap exploded, but the charge did not go off. He was convicted by the sessions
judge under Section 299 and 300 read with Section 511 17, and not under Section 307

15
Bom. H.C. Reps. Vol IV, P.17.
16
(1892). I.L.R. 14 All. 38.
17
Punishment for attempting to commit offences punishable with imprisonment for life or other
imprisonment.—Whoever attempts to commit an offence punishable by this Code with 1[imprisonment for life]
or imprisonment, or to cause such an offence to be commit-ted, and in such attempt does any act towards the
commission of the offence, shall, where no express provision is made by this Code for the punishment of such
attempt, be punished with 2[imprisonment of any description provided for the offence, for a term which may
extend to one-half of the imprisonment for life or, as the case may be, one-half of the longest term of
imprison-ment provided for that offence], or with such fine as is provided for the offence, or with both.

8
 Law of Crimes

IPC, Straight J, relied on the Cassidy case but did not agree with certain views
expressed therein. He expressed his views as thus:

“It seems to me that if a person who has an evil intent does an act which is the last
possible act that he could do towards the accomplishment of a particular crime that
he has in his mind, he is not entitled to pray in his aid an obstacle intervening not
known to himself. If he did all that he could do and completed the only remaining
proximate act in his power, I do not think he can escape criminal responsibility, and
this because his own set volition and purpose having been given effect to their full
extent, a fact unknown to him and at variance with his own belief, intervened to
prevent the consequences of the act which he expected to ensue, ensuing.”

Straight J. was of the view that if a person does an act which he knows will cause
injury or even death to the other person, but in the course of completion of his act
something extraordinary happens which thwarts its completion. Then the accused
cannot take the defence that of an obstacle intervening not know to himself.
However, Illustration (d)18 to Section 307, itself shows the incorrectness of this view.
A’s last act, contemplated in this illustration, is not an act which must result in the
murder of Z. The food is to be taken by Z. It is to be served to him. It may not have
been possible for A to serve the food himself to Z, but the fact remains that A’s act in
merely delivering the food to the servant is remote to the food being served and being
taken by Z. The decision of the Nidha case was overruled by the Supreme Court and
brought a clarity in the application of Section 307, they quoted Straight J.
“for the purpose of constituting an attempt under Section 307 IPC, there are two
ingredients required, first, an evil intent or knowledge, and secondly the act done.”
The Omkar Singh judgement set a precedent to follow by the Supreme Court of India
and is since used as the basic authority in dealing with the matter involving Section

18
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.

9
 Law of Crimes

307 IPC. Since then, around 26 cases19 are decided in which this case was relied upon.
This stat clearly indicates the merit of this judgement.

CONCLUSION
Omkar Singh v. State of Punjab serves as a landmark case regarding Section 307 IPC.
In this case the wife was starved for days by her in-laws, one day fortunately she
managed to escape and went to the nearby civil hospital. Her health was deteriorating,
and she was in a very serious condition. Case was lodged against her husband and his
family. The sessions judge convicted him under section 307 IPC, he then appealed in
High Court and then to the Supreme Court of India as well, but there too, his
conviction was upheld. The reasoning of the bench in this judgement was on point as
the facts of the case clearly satisfied the necessary ingredients for conviction under
Section 307 i.e. it has mens rea as well as actus reus. The bench also overruled the
decision of Queen-Empress v. Nidha and said that the case clearly follows the
Illustration (d) of Section 307. The bench relied on the judgement given in Emperor
v. Vasudeo Balwant Gogte20, in which Beaumont, CJ, said that: “for the purpose of
constituting an attempt under Section 307 IPC, there are two ingredients required,
first, an evil intent or knowledge, and secondly, an act done”, to come to the
conclusion. This case solved the major the probem in the law regarding Section 307
and Section 300 read with Section 511 IPC. This judgement went out to become a set
precedent and since then have been referred in 26 cases.

19
Manupatrablog.
20
(9132) I.L.R. 56 Bom, 434.

10
 Law of Crimes

Bibliography
Books referred: -
 Dr. S.R. Myneni: Law of Crimes, Asia Law House, Hyderabad
 K.D. Gaur: Commentary on The Indian Penal Code, Universal Law
Publishing, New Delhi
 P.S.A. Pillai: Criminal Law- Incorporating the criminal law (Indian Penal
Code), LexisNexis India, Gurgaon
 K.I. Vibhute: Criminal Law, LexisNexis India, Gurgaon.
Websites referred: -
 manupatra.com
 scconline.com
 oxforddictionery.com
 indiankanoon.com

11