A shoots at Z with the intention to kill him but Z ultimately recovers from injury. What offense, if any, is committed by A in this case?

Question: A shoots at Z with the intention to kill him but Z ultimately recovers from injury. What offense, if any, is committed by A in this case? [W.B.CJ. 1993] Find the answer to the mains question only on Legal Bites [A shoots at Z with the intention to kill him but Z ultimately recovers from injury. What offense,… Read More »

Update: 2021-07-20 13:22 GMT
story

Question: A shoots at Z with the intention to kill him but Z ultimately recovers from injury. What offense, if any, is committed by A in this case? [W.B.CJ. 1993] Find the answer to the mains question only on Legal Bites [A shoots at Z with the intention to kill him but Z ultimately recovers from injury. What offense, if any, is committed by A in this case?] Answer The intention and the knowledge of the result of the act being done is the main thing that is needed to be proved for...

Question: A shoots at Z with the intention to kill him but Z ultimately recovers from injury. What offense, if any, is committed by A in this case? [W.B.CJ. 1993]

Find the answer to the mains question only on Legal Bites [A shoots at Z with the intention to kill him but Z ultimately recovers from injury. What offense, if any, is committed by A in this case?]

Answer

The intention and the knowledge of the result of the act being done is the main thing that is needed to be proved for conviction under Section 307. For the conviction under this section more importance has been given to mens rea or the intention than the actus reus or the actual act itself.

In Girija Shankar v. State of Uttar Pradesh AIR 2004 SC 1808 it was observed that:

What 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 this section. An attempt in order to be a criminal need not be a penultimate act. It is sufficient in law if there is present an intent coupled with some overt act in execution thereof.

In the case of Kuldip Singh v. State [(1988) 3 Crimes 628(1) Del (SN)] the accused tried to hit the victim with a naked sword but somehow the victim got saved and the blow only caused simple injury, but the court convicted the accused under Section 307 IPC because of the dangerous weapon used, which gave away the intention of the accused, which was to murder the victim.

So basically if the intention or necessary knowledge to cause death as envisaged by Section 300 IPC which defines murder is there, then it is immaterial to whether or not any hurt was caused to the victim by the accused.

Therefore, even if Z did not die and eventually recovered from the injury, A will still be liable for an attempt to murder Z under Section 307, IPC.


Important Mains Questions Series for Judiciary, APO & University Exams

  1. IPC Mains Questions Series Part I: Important Questions
  2. IPC Mains Questions Series Part II: Important Questions
  3. IPC Mains Questions Series Part III: Important Questions
  4. IPC Mains Questions Series Part IV: Important Questions
  5. IPC Mains Questions Series Part V: Important Questions
  6. IPC Mains Questions Series Part VI: Important Questions
  7. IPC Mains Questions Series Part VII: Important Questions
  8. IPC Mains Questions Series Part VIII: Important Questions
  9. IPC Mains Questions Series Part IX: Important Questions
  10. IPC Mains Questions Series Part X: Important Questions

Similar News