The contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the offence of attempted murder made punishable under Section 307 IPC contemplates the existence of special mens rea, (guilty intention or guilty knowledge) specified in Section 300 IPC which defines murder and on the facts and in the circumstances of the present case, there is no foundation for ascribing to the petitioners that requisite mens rea. It is urged that in the absence of special mens rea a culprit may be guilty under Section 323 IPC though his act results in the death of the victim.
1. This revision petition is directed against the order dated 25-11-86 passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge Mandleshwar whereby he has framed charges forthe offences of attempted murder against the applications in addition to the charges for other offences not exclusively triable by the Court of Session.
2. Circumstances giving rise to the petition are these. On the report lodged by one Gulab-bai resident of Kasarawad alleging that on 30-3-86 the accused persons entered her house and then except the applicant No. 4, the other three applicants Nos. 1, 2 and 3 were armed respectively with cricket bat, hockey stick and lathi had caused three simple injuries to her and one simple injury to her son. This was done because in the last municipal elections she and her family members had voted in favour of the Gangaram Khede.
3. The contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the offence of attempted murder made punishable under Section 307 IPC contemplates the existence of special mens rea, (guilty intention or guilty knowledge) specified in Section 300 IPC which defines murder and on the facts and in the circumstances of the present case, there is no foundation for ascribing to the petitioners that requisite mens rea. It is urged that in the absence of special mens rea a culprit may be guilty under Section 323 IPC though his act results in the death of the victim.
4. The point for consideration is whether the revision petition deserves to be allowed.
5. On the question of charge, it is pertinent to bear in mind the provision embodied in Section 211(5) of the Cr.P.C. 1973. It reads thus:
211. Contents of charge:
(5) The fact that the charge is made is equivalent to a statement that every" legal condition required by law to constitute the offence charged was fulfilled in the particular case.
6. In order to constitute a crime under Section 307 IPC actus reus and the requisite mens rea both must concur. Regarding the mens rea the decision in Bhursingh's case 1985 Cur Cri J 184 (Madh Pra) is pertinent. Hurt is not an ingredient of the said offence but in a given case its existence may assume great reliance.
7. It may tfe noted that the mens rea which is determinative of the offence precedes the act and cannot always be judged with refe ence to its result Le. the injuries sustained by the victim. The motive, the weapon used, the art of the body aimed at enter into the determination of mens rea. It is not the prosecution case that there was any intervention and that it was as a result of the' same that the culprits could not inflict more injuries. Therefore, on a consideration of the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, it is difficult to hold that the applicants had the requisite mens rea for the offence under Section 307 or 308 IPC.
8. For the foregoing reasons the revision petition is allowed. The charges under Sections 307 and 307/34 IPC are quashed. The case is remanded to the learned Sessions Judge for being dealt with under Section 228(l)(a) of the Code.
Print Page
211. Contents of charge:
(5) The fact that the charge is made is equivalent to a statement that every" legal condition required by law to constitute the offence charged was fulfilled in the particular case.
6. In order to constitute a crime under Section 307 IPC actus reus and the requisite mens rea both must concur. Regarding the mens rea the decision in Bhursingh's case 1985 Cur Cri J 184 (Madh Pra) is pertinent. Hurt is not an ingredient of the said offence but in a given case its existence may assume great reliance.
7. It may be noted that the mens rea which is determinative of the offence precedes the act and cannot always be judged with reference to its result Le. the injuries sustained by the victim. The motive, the weapon used, the art of the body aimed at enter into the determination of mens rea. It is not the prosecution case that there was any intervention and that it was as a result of the' same that the culprits could not inflict more injuries. Therefore, on a consideration of the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, it is difficult to hold that the applicants had the requisite mens rea for the offence under Section 307 or 308 IPC.
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Mahesh And Ors. vs State Of M.P. on 25 February, 1987
Equivalent citations: 1988 CriLJ 1565
K.L. Shrivastava, J.1. This revision petition is directed against the order dated 25-11-86 passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge Mandleshwar whereby he has framed charges forthe offences of attempted murder against the applications in addition to the charges for other offences not exclusively triable by the Court of Session.
2. Circumstances giving rise to the petition are these. On the report lodged by one Gulab-bai resident of Kasarawad alleging that on 30-3-86 the accused persons entered her house and then except the applicant No. 4, the other three applicants Nos. 1, 2 and 3 were armed respectively with cricket bat, hockey stick and lathi had caused three simple injuries to her and one simple injury to her son. This was done because in the last municipal elections she and her family members had voted in favour of the Gangaram Khede.
3. The contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the offence of attempted murder made punishable under Section 307 IPC contemplates the existence of special mens rea, (guilty intention or guilty knowledge) specified in Section 300 IPC which defines murder and on the facts and in the circumstances of the present case, there is no foundation for ascribing to the petitioners that requisite mens rea. It is urged that in the absence of special mens rea a culprit may be guilty under Section 323 IPC though his act results in the death of the victim.
4. The point for consideration is whether the revision petition deserves to be allowed.
5. On the question of charge, it is pertinent to bear in mind the provision embodied in Section 211(5) of the Cr.P.C. 1973. It reads thus:
211. Contents of charge:
(5) The fact that the charge is made is equivalent to a statement that every" legal condition required by law to constitute the offence charged was fulfilled in the particular case.
6. In order to constitute a crime under Section 307 IPC actus reus and the requisite mens rea both must concur. Regarding the mens rea the decision in Bhursingh's case 1985 Cur Cri J 184 (Madh Pra) is pertinent. Hurt is not an ingredient of the said offence but in a given case its existence may assume great reliance.
7. It may tfe noted that the mens rea which is determinative of the offence precedes the act and cannot always be judged with refe ence to its result Le. the injuries sustained by the victim. The motive, the weapon used, the art of the body aimed at enter into the determination of mens rea. It is not the prosecution case that there was any intervention and that it was as a result of the' same that the culprits could not inflict more injuries. Therefore, on a consideration of the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, it is difficult to hold that the applicants had the requisite mens rea for the offence under Section 307 or 308 IPC.
8. For the foregoing reasons the revision petition is allowed. The charges under Sections 307 and 307/34 IPC are quashed. The case is remanded to the learned Sessions Judge for being dealt with under Section 228(l)(a) of the Code.
No comments:
Post a Comment