A, during the quarrel with a woman B, flung her child (about 2 years old) into a 4 feet deep pond out of anger and also told her that the death of a child would teach her a lesson. But C who was standing near the pond immediately picked up the child from the pond and the child did not die. Is A guilty of…

Question: A, during the quarrel with a woman B, flung her child (about 2 years old) into a 4 feet deep pond out of anger and also told her that the death of a child would teach her a lesson. But C who was standing near the pond immediately picked up the child from the pond and the child did not die. Is A guilty of ‘attempt of murder’ the child under Section 307, I.P.C. Give reasons and also refer to the case law, if any, on the point.

Find the answer to the mains question only on Legal Bites [A, during the quarrel with a woman B, flung her child (about 2 years old) into a 4 feet deep pond out of anger and also told her that death of a child would teach her a lesson. But C who was standing near the pond immediately…]

Answer

A has committed an attempt to murder offence under Section 307. Section 307 deals with the offence of an attempt to commit murder. In order to constitute an offence under this section, two elements are essential.

• intention or knowledge to commit murder.
• the actual act of trying to commit the murder.

Thus, it must have both the necessary mens rea and actus reus. As held in the case of Devi Lal v. State of Rajasthan (2007) 14 SCC 176: It is sufficient if 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 intervention that frustrated its consummation

The word ‘intention’ and the term ‘knowledge’ used in Section 307, IPC, refer to knowledge as found in Section 300, cl (4). The term ‘knowledge’ refers to the ‘knowledge of the offender that the act done by him is so imminently dangerous that it must in all probability cause death or such bodily injury, as is likely to cause death.

Illustration (b) to Section 307 explains the given situation well: 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.

In Liyakat Mian v. State of Bihar [AIR 1973 SC 807], the accused shot a person from very close quarters causing injuries on the abdomen and the left arm. It was held that from these circumstances, the knowledge that the injury caused by him would result in death could be imputed to the accused. The accused was convicted under Section 307, IPC.

Therefore, based on the above provisions and observations of court it is clear that A when flung B’s child (about 2 years old) into a 4 feet deep pond out of anger and also told her that the death of a child would teach her a lesson, has both the intention to do kill and knowledge that such an act in all probability will cause the death of the child.

Therefore, even though the child was saved by C, A will still be held liable for an attempt to murder B’s child under Section 307.

---

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