Sarju Prasad vs State of Bihar, 1965

CITATION	AIR1965SC843
DATE	20th August 1964
COURT NAME	Supreme Court of india
PLAINTIFF/APPELLANT/PETITIONER	Sarju Prasad
DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT.	State of Bihar
JUDGES	Justice A.K Sarkar  Justice Raghubar Dayal  Justice Mudholkar

INTRODUCTION

Sarju Prasad vs State of Bihar (1965) is a case on appeal against conviction under Section 307 IPC for attempt to murder. On 23 February, 1961, Sarju Prasad and Sushil Chand Jain beat up Madan Mohan Sinha and Shankar Prasad Shrivastava and grievously injured them. The Supreme Court considered the circumstances and intent behind the act, bearing in mind whether it would have been Section 307 IPC if the injuries had resulted in death. The judgement sheds light on the legal interpretation of attempts at murder and Section 307 IPC.

FACTS OF THE CASE 

1. It has been discovered by the lower courts that on 23rd February, 1961, Madan Mohan Sinha and Shankar Prasad Shrivastava were assaulted when they were moving through the Dharman Chowk at 1:30 P.M. by Sushil Chand Jain with a chhura, causing grievous injuries to Madan Mohan and Shankar Prasad, and that such injuries were caused to them by Sushil Chand with such intention or knowledge and under such circumstances that had he caused death, the offence would be covered under Section 307, Indian Penal Code.
2. The lower courts have also concluded that the appellant Sarju Prasad, who was also involved in the incident, caused identical injuries on Shankar Prasad with the same intention.
3. Sushil Chand and the appellant Sarju Prasad were both convicted by the Second Assistant Sessions Judge, Arrah, under Section 324 and Section 307, I.P.C., and in relation to the latter offence, convicted and sentenced to severe imprisonment for 7 years and to a fine.
4. Their appeals against conviction and sentences were rejected by the High Court of Patna.
5. Surju Prasad has approached this court by special leave.
6. We are told that the special leave petition filed by Sushil from jail was summarily rejected by this court.

ISSUES OF THE CASE

Sarju Prasad vs State of Bihar (1965) throws up the following questions:

1.  Whether or not Sarju Prasad’s action amounts to an offence under Section 307 IPC – whether or not what Sarju Prasad did constituted an attempt at murder under Section 307 IPC – is to be decided by the court?
2.  The court needs to find out whether the conviction and sentencing of Sarju Prasad by the trial court were lawful and whether the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for 7 years and the fine were justified.

JUDGEMENT

The Supreme Court of India gave a ruling in the case of Sarju Prasad vs State of Bihar (1965) on August 20, 1964. The case concerned a situation where Sarju Prasad and Sushil Chand Jain assaulted Madan Mohan Sinha and Shankar Prasad Shrivastava and caused grievous injuries to them.

The trial courts below concluded that Sushil Chand Jain assaulted the victims with a chhura, causing grievous injuries with intent or knowledge that if the injuries caused death, the crime would be under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code. Sarju Prasad was also held to have joined in the act, causing similar injuries to Shankar Prasad with similar intent.

Both Sushil Chand and Sarju Prasad were found guilty by the Second Assistant Sessions Judge, Arrah, under Section 324 and Section 307 IPC and sentenced to 7 years of rigorous imprisonment and a fine. The Supreme Court restricted the appeal to the question of whether Sarju Prasad’s action constituted an offence under Section 307 IPC.

The court took into account the provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, i.e., Section 6, prohibiting the court from passing a sentence of imprisonment on an offender for an offence punishable with imprisonment for life or death. A portion of the attraction was permitted by the Supreme Court, and the case was referred back to the High Court to decide in what manner something should be ordered, exercising the provisions of Section 6 of the Probation of Offenders Act.

This decision was based on the fact that the Act had been applied to the State of Bihar through Notification No. DPS/118-JL dated June 4, 1959. The Supreme Court ruling in Sarju Prasad vs State of Bihar (1965) is helpful to comprehend the operation of Section 307 IPC and the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958.

The judgement of the court focuses on how the intent and the reasons behind the act need to be considered while determining which offence and punishment are to be invoked. The case also depicts how the court is concerned about upholding justice and upholding law. The case’s outcome is an important judicial precedent which aids in furnishing guidance with respect to the interpretation of attempt to murder and the application of Section 307 IPC.

The case also mentions the requirement of remembering the provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, while passing the sentence. The Supreme Court judgement in the case gives emphasis to the requirement of examining the evidence carefully and applying the legislation prevailing at the time of identification of the offence involved and sentence.

Briefly, the Sarju Prasad vs State of Bihar (1965) case is a good judicial precedent that describes the operation of Section 307 IPC and the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958. The court’s decision revolves around the need to consider motives and reasons for doing something while determining the offence and the penalty to be awarded.

  REASONING 

Sarju Prasad vs State of Bihar (1965) is a case of appeal from conviction under Section 307 IPC of attempt to murder. The Supreme Court judgement clarifies the legal construction of attempted murder and application of Section 307 IPC.

The decision heavily relies on precedents from the past to define the parameters of Section 307 IPC:

R. v. Cassidy (1867): Held that for an act to fall under Section 307, it should be capable of inflicting death in the normal course of nature.

Martu v. Queen (1913): Affirmed the Cassidy decision, laying stress on the requirement of potential fatality in the act.

Emperor v. Vasudeo B. Gogte (1932): questioned the usefulness of Section 307 on the premise that if something inherently unable to cause death is ruled out, the section proves useless.

Queen-Empress v. Niddha (1891): interpreted the term “under such circumstances” of Section 307, defining the situations in which defences such as self-defence can be invoked.

Om Prakash v. State Of Punjab (1962): Upheld the belief that though no fatal injury is caused, an act could be classed under Section 307 if it was meant to cause death or grievous hurt.

These precedents cumulatively guided the court in its interpretation, striking a balance between the spirit of the law and its literal application.

The legal debate at its core was whether Sarju Prasad’s actions qualified as an attempt to murder. The defence said that the injuries were straightforward and did not attack vital organs, thus coming under Section 324 IPC. The court questioned this by considering:

The extent and character of the resultant injuries.

The intention behind the act—whether the act was to cause death or grievous hurt.

The circumstances in which the offence occurred, along with the absence of hatred and the fact that it happened in public.

The court ruled that the simple causation of harm to a sensitive area does not ipso facto place the act under Section 307. Instead, it requires evidence that the act was so committed with the intent or knowledge that death could be a likely result. The prosecution here failed to establish a valid motive or intention to kill and hence forced the court to declare the offence as under Section 324 IPC.

CONCLUSION

The Sarju Prasad v. State Of Bihar judgement highlights the careful stance courts need to take while categorising offences under the IPC. By laying out the criteria for Section 307 IPC, the court makes it a point that only actions with evident intent to kill or cause serious harm are charged under this stringent act. Not only does this shield individuals from unwarranted, more severe charges, but it also upholds the integrity of legal classification. In addition, the acknowledgement of rehabilitative measures under the Probation of Offenders Act reflects the fairness of the judiciary in dealing with punishment and rehabilitation. The judgement is also a demonstration of the court’s commitment to enforcing the law and administering justice to all. The case is a reminder of the importance of careful consideration and examination of the evidence in determining the offence and penalty that should apply.

The Supreme Court having granted leave to appeal partially and referring the matter back to the High Court indicates the significance of giving consideration to the provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, while pronouncing the sentence.

Finally, this ruling acts as a protector of legal accuracy, directing future litigations in separating different levels of criminal intent and making sure that the justice administered complies with the letter and the spirit of the law.

REFERENCES

1. https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1308077/
2. https://www.casemine.com/commentary/in/revisiting-section-307-ipc:-insights-from-sarju-prasad-v.-state-of-bihar/view

Written by Akhya Tripathi of United University, an intern under Legal Vidhiya .

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.