HARI KISHAN & ANR. vs. SUKHBIR SINGH & ORS 1988

CITATION	[1988] Supp. (2) S.C.R. 571
YEAR OF JUDGEMENT	25TH AUGUST 1988
PLAINTIFF	HARI KISHAN
RESPONDENT	SUKHBIR SINGH
BENCH	Hon’ble Mr. Justice K. Jagannatha Shetty

INTRODUCTION-

This case stems from a criminal appeal submitted to the Supreme Court, challenging a judgement from the High Court of Punjab and Haryana. The High Court had partially upheld an appeal from several defendants who were originally found guilty by the Sessions Judge of crimes including attempted murder (Section 307 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code – IPC). The Supreme Court scrutinised the validity of the High Court’s ruling, especially concerning the acquittal of certain defendants under Section 307/149 IPC and the decision to grant probation to others. The case holds importance for its comments on the judiciary’s authority to award compensation to crime victims as outlined in Section 357 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC).

FACTS-

1) The event occurred on September 28, 1982, between 8 and 9 in the morning near a tubewell that belonged to Hari Kishan.

2) Hari Kishan was present at his tubewell, while his nephew Virender and son Joginder were engaged in planting a Berseem crop.

3) The accused, including Sukhbir Singh, approached from the vicinity of the tubewell, armed with weapons like ballams (spears) and dangas (sticks).

4) One of the attackers allegedly shouted a “Lalkara” (a taunt or challenge), which triggered the assault on Virender and Joginder.

5) In the scuffle, several assailants, such as Siri Chand, Dhan Pal, Om Pal, and Sukhbir Singh, also sustained injuries and required medical attention. Siri Chand suffered four injuries, one of which was a fracture caused by a blunt object.

6) The Sessions Court convicted seven individuals under different sections of the IPC, including Sections 307/149 (attempted murder with joint intent), 325/149 (grievous injury with joint intent), 323/149 (simple injury with joint intent), and 148 (rioting armed with a dangerous weapon). Their sentences ranged from one to three years.

7) Upon review, the High Court exonerated two of the accused from all allegations and acquitted five others of the charge under Section 307/149 IPC while affirming their convictions and sentences for Sections 325/149, 323/149, and 148 IPC. The High Court also offered probation to five of the convicted individuals under Section 360 of the CrPC and required them to compensate Joginder, who had suffered severe injuries leading to permanent speech difficulties.

ISSUES –

(i) whether the respondents can be considered not guilty of the offense under section 307/149 IPC;

(ii) whether the High Court acted appropriately in granting the benefit of section 360 Cr.P.C. and allowing the accused to be released on probation for good behavior; and

(iii) Whether the compensation granted to Joginder is legally justifiable, and if so, what amount should be deemed appropriate as compensation?

JUDGEMENT-

The ruling from the Supreme Court dealt with the appeal against the decision made by the High Court, which had acquitted certain defendants of attempted murder and granted probation to others convicted of lesser offences. The main points of the Supreme Court’s judgement are:

1) Upheld Acquittal under Section 307 IPC: The court agreed with the High Court’s conclusion that the prosecution did not establish the requisite intention to commit murder for those accused who were acquitted under Section 307/149 IPC. Key factors in this verdict included the absence of prior animosity, the unexpected nature of the altercation, and the use of the blunt sides of the weapons by the accused, despite being attacked. The Court reiterated that establishing intention or knowledge regarding the intent to commit murder is essential for a charge under Section 307 IPC.

2) Affirmed Grant of Probation: The Supreme Court found the High Court’s decision to grant probation to five convicted individuals under Section 360 CrPC to be appropriate. The Court recognised that these individuals were not violent offenders, the incident stemmed from an unexpected conflict, and giving probation to first-time offenders was suitable.

3) Enhanced Compensation under Section 357 CrPC: One of the key aspects of the ruling was the Supreme Court’s emphasis on the necessity of awarding compensation to crime victims under Section 357 CrPC. While the High Court had ordered some compensation, the Supreme Court deemed it insufficient, especially considering the serious injuries sustained by Joginder, which included permanent speech impairment. The Court increased the compensation amount to be paid by the five appellants who received probation, highlighting that this authority exists in addition to other sentences and is intended to provide reassurance and restorative justice to the victim. 

4) Liberal Use of Compensation Power: The Supreme Court encouraged all courts to broadly utilise the authority to award compensation to better achieve justice. It offered guidelines for assessing the reasonableness of compensation, considering factors such as the crime’s nature, the validity of the victim’s claim, and the financial capabilities of the accused. The Court also suggested that multiple defendants could be held equally accountable for payment, unless there are significant disparities in their financial situations, and that reasonable timeframes for payment, even in instalments, might be allowed, with the possibility of enforcing compliance through default sentences. 

REASONING-

In the case of Hari Kishan vs Sukhbir Singh (1988), the Supreme Court examined the essential elements of “attempt to murder” as defined in Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The primary legal rationale focused on the need to demonstrate a definite intention or knowledge from the accused that is comparable to that required for an actual murder.

The court asserted that simply causing injury is not enough to qualify as an attempt to murder. The prosecution is required to show that the accused acted with intent or knowledge such that if the act had led to death, it would have constituted murder. This differentiation is vital for distinguishing between acts resulting in simple or grievous hurt and those aimed at killing.

The court pointed out the necessity of understanding the accused’s intention, which is a subjective factor. This intent cannot be merely deduced from the outcomes of the act. Instead, the court mandated a thorough analysis of all relevant circumstances, including the type of weapon used, the extent of the injuries sustained, the targeted area of the body, and the relationship between the individuals involved.

In this specific case, the Supreme Court determined that the evidence did not adequately prove the needed intention or knowledge to induce death. The court observed the lack of a clear motive as well as the nature of the injuries, which did not definitively point to a calculated attempt to kill. As a result, the accused were acquitted of the charge under Section 307 IPC.

Additionally, the judgement highlighted the authority of the court to grant compensation to victims as per Section 357 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC). The court advocated for the generous use of this authority to enhance the justice served. It emphasised that compensation should be fair and proportional to the victim’s suffering. In this case, the court mandated the accused to provide compensation to the injured party, reinforcing the restorative justice principle in the criminal justice framework. The ruling clarifies the significance of establishing intent in cases of attempted murder and the court’s capacity to award compensation.

CONCLUSION-

The 1988 case of Hari Kishan & Anr vs Sukhbir Singh & Ors focused on the interpretation of Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, which pertains to “attempted murder”. One significant takeaway from this judgement is the emphasis on the need to demonstrate the accused’s intention or awareness of committing murder. The Supreme Court clarified that for an act to be categorised as “attempted murder”, the intention or knowledge of the accused must indicate that, had the act been completed, it would have constituted murder. In this case, the court evaluated the circumstances surrounding the incident, such as the lack of previous enmity and the abrupt nature of the conflict, to assess whether the accused had the necessary intention. Additionally, the court addressed the significance of granting compensation to victims under Section 357 of the Criminal Procedure Code, promoting a proactive approach by courts in this regard to ensure justice. The ruling also explored the application of the Probation of Offenders Act, emphasising the court’s consideration of elements like the offender’s character and the context of the offence. Ultimately, the Hari Kishan vs Sukhbir Singh case offers valuable legal insights on the components of “attempted murder” and the judicial role in victim compensation and rehabilitation of offenders.

 REFERENCES-

1) https://digiscr.sci.gov.in/view_judgment?id=MjEzMTA= 

THIS CASE ANALYSIS IS DONE BY AMISHA RATHOD AN INTERN AT LEGAL VIDHYA

Disclaimer: The materials provided herein are intended solely for informational purposes. Accessing or using the site or materials does not establish an attorney-client relationship. The information presented on this site is not to be construed as legal or professional advice, and it should not be relied upon for such purposes or used as a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney in your state. Additionally, the viewpoint presented by the author is personal.