minal Appeal No 177 of 1959
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated May 23 1958 of the Punjab High Court in Criminal Appeal No 515 of 1957
Jai Gopal Sethi and R L Kohli for the appellant
B K Khanaa R H Debhar and D Gupta for the respondent
April 24
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by RAGHUBAR DAYAL J
This appeal by special leave is against the order of the Punjab High Court dismissing the appellant s appeal against his conviction under section 307 Indian Penal Code
Bimla Devi P W 7 was married to the appellant in October 1951
Their relations got strained by 1953 and she went to her brother s place and stayed there for about a year when she returned to her husband s place at the assurance of the appellant s maternal uncle that she would not be maltreated in future
She was however ill treated and her health deteriorated due to alleged maltreatment and deliberate undernourishment
In 1956 she was deliberately starved and was not allowed to leave the house and only sometimes a morsel or so used to be thrown to her as alms are given to beggars
She was denied food for days together and used to be given gram husk mixed in water after five or six days
She managed to go out of the house in April 1956 but Romesh Chander and Suresh Chander brothers of the appellant caught 256 hold of her and forcibly dragged her inside the house where she was severely beaten
Thereafter she was kept locked inside a room
On June 5 1956 she happened to find her room unlocked her mother in law and husband away and availing of the opportunity went out of the house and managed to reach the Civil Hospital Ludhiana where she met lady Doctor Mrs Kumar P W 2 and told her of her sufferings
The appellant and his mother went to the hospital and tried their best to take her back to the house but were not allowed to do so by the lady Doctor
Social workers got interested in the matter and informed the brother of Bimla Devi one Madan Mohan who came down to Ludhiana and after learning all facts sent information to the Police Station by letter on June 16 1956
In his letter he said My sister Bimla Devi Sharma is lying in death bed
Her condition is very serious
I am told by her that deliberate attempt has been made by her husband mother in law and brother in law and sister in law
I was also told that she was kept locked in a room for a long time and was beaten by all the above and was starved
I therefore request that a case may be registered and her statement be recorded immediately
 The same day at 9 15 pm Dr Miss Dalbir Dhillon sent a note to the police saying My patient Bimla Devi is actually ill
She may collapse any moment 
Shri Sehgal Magistrate PW 9 recorded her statement that night and stated in his note Blood transfusion is taking place through the right forearm and consequently the right hand of the patient is not free
It is not possible to get the thumb impression of the right hand thumb of the patient
That is why I have got her left hand thumb impression
 The impression formed by the learned Judge of the High Court on seeing the photographs taken of Bimla Devi a few days later is stated thus in the judgment The impression I formed on looking at the two 257 photographs of Bimla was that at that time she appeared to be suffering from extreme emaciation
Her cheeks appeared to be hollow
The projecting bones of her body with little flesh on them made her appearance skeletal
The countenance seemed  to be cadaverous After considering the evidence of Bimla Devi and the Doctors the learned Judge came to the conclusion So far as the basic allegations are concerned which formed the gravamen of the offence the veracity of her statement cannot be doubted
After a careful scrutiny of her statement I find her allegations as to starvation maltreatment etc true
The exaggerations and omissions to which my attention was drawn in her statement are inconsequential
 After considering the entire evidence on record the learned Judge said After having given anxious thought and careful consideration to the facts and circumstances as emerge from the lengthy evidence on the record I cannot accept the argument of the learned counsel for the accused that the condition of acute emacia tion in which Bimla Devi was found on 5th of June 1956 was not due to any calculated starvation but it was on account of prolonged illness the nature of which was not known to the accused till Dr Gulati had expressed his opinion that she was suffering from tuberculosis He further stated The story of Bimla Devi as to how she was illtreated and how her end was attempted to be brought about or precipitated is convincing despite the novelty of the method in which the object was sought to be achieved
The conduct of the accused and of his mother on 5th of June 1956 when soon after Bimla Devi s admission in the hospital they insisted on taking her back home is significant and almost tell tale
It was not for better treatment or for any treatment that they wanted to take her back home
Their real object in doing so could be no other than to accelerate her end
 258 The appellant was acquitted of the offence under s342 Indian Penal Code by the Additional Sessions Judge who gave him the benefit of doubt though he had come to the conclusion that Bimla Devi s movements were restricted to a certain extent
The learned Judge of the High Court considered this question and came to a different conclusion
Having come to these findings the learned Judge considered the question whether on these facts an offence under section 307 Indian Penal Code had been established or not
He held it proved
Mr Sethi learned counsel for the appellant has challenged the correctness of this view in law
He concedes that it is only when a person is helpless and is unable to look after himself that the person having control over him is legally bound to look after his requirements and to see that he is adequately fed
Such persons according to him are infants old people and lunatics
He contends that it is no part of a husband s duty to spoon feed his wife his duty being simply to provide funds and food
In view of the finding of the Court below about Bimla Devi s being confined and being deprived of regular food in pursuance of a scheme of regularly starving her in order to accelerate her end the responsibility of the appellant for the condition to which she was brought up to the 5th of June 1956 is clear
The findings really go against any suggestion that the appellant had actually provided food and funds for his wife Bimla Devi
The next contention for the appellant is that the ingredients of an offence under section 307 are materially different from the ingredients of an offence under section 511 Indian Penal Code
The difference is that for an act to amount to the commission of the offence of attempting to commit an offence it need not be the last act and can be the first act towards the commission of the offence while for an offence under section 307 it is the last act which if effective to cause death would constitute the offence of an attempt to commit murder
The contention really is that even if Bimla Devi had been deprived of food for a certain period the act of so depriving her does not come under section 307 250 as that act could not by itself have caused her death it being necessary for the period of starvation to continue for a longer period to cause death
We do not agree with this contention
Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code reads Whoever does any act with such intention or knowledge and under such circumstances that if he by that act caused death he would be guilty of murder shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years and shall also be liable to fine and if hurt is caused to any person by such act the offender shall be liable either to imprisonment for life or to such punishment as is hereinbefore mentioned
When any person offending under this section is under sentence of imprisonment for life he may if hurt is caused be punished with death
 Section 308 reads Whoever does any act with such intention or knowledge and under such circumstances that if he by that act caused death he would be guilty of culpable homicide not amounting to murder shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years or with fine or with both and if hurt is caused to any person by such act shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years or with fine or with both Both the sections are expressed in similar language
If section 307 is to be interpreted as urged for the appellant section 308 too should be interpreted that way
What  ever may be said with respect to section 307 being exhaustive or covering all the cases of attempts to commit murder and section 511 not applying to any case of attempt to commit murder on account of its being applicable only to offences punishable with imprisonment for life or imprisonment the same cannot be said with respect to the offence of attempt to commit culpable homicide punishable under section 308
An attempt to commit culpable homicide is punishable with imprisonment for a certain period and therefore but for its being expressly made an offence under section 308 it would have 260 fallen under section 511 which applies to all attempts to commit offences punishable with imprisonment where no express provisions are made by the Code for the punishment of that attempt
It should follow that the ingredients of an offence of attempt to commit culpable homicide not amounting to murder should be the same as the ingredients of an offence of attempt to commit that offence under section 511
We have held this day in Abhayanand Mishra vs The State of Bihar 1 that a person commits the offence of attempting to commit a particular offence when he intends to commit that particular offence and having made preparations and with the intention to commit that offence does an act towards its commission and that such an act need not be the penultimate act towards the commission of that offence but must be an act during the course of committing such offence
It follows therefore that a person commits an offence under section 308 when he has an intention to commit culpable homicide not amounting to murder and in pursuance of that intention does an act towards the commission of that offence whether that act be the penultimate act or not
On a parity of reasoning a person commits an offence under section 307 when he has an intention to commit murder and in pursuance of that intention does an act towards its commission irrespective of the fact whether that act is the penultimate act or not
It is to be clearly understood however that the intention to commit the offence of murder means that the person concerned has the intention to do certain act with the necessary intention or knowledge mentioned in section 300
The intention to commit an offence is different from the intention or knowledge requisite for constituting the act as that offence
The expression whoever attempts to commit an offence  in section 511 can only mean whoever intends to do a certain act with the intent or knowledge necessary for the commission of that offence 
The same is meant by the expression whoever does an act with such intention or knowledge and under such circumstances that if he by that act caused death he would be guilty of murder  in section 307
This simply means that the act must be done with the 1  261 intent or knowledge requisite for the commission of the offence of murder
The expression by that act  does not mean that the immediate effect of the act committed must be death
Such a result must be the result of that act whether immediately or after a lapse of time
The word act  again does not mean only any particular specific instantaneous act of a person but denotes according to section 33 of the Code as well a series of acts
The course of conduct adopted by the appellant in regularly starving Bimla Devi comprised a series of acts and therefore acts falling short of completing the series and would therefore come within the purview of section 307 of the Code
Learned counsel for the appellant has referred us to certain cases in this connection
We now discuss them
The first is Queen Empress vs Nidha 1
Nidha who had been absconding noticing certain chowkidars arrive brought up a sort of a blunderbuss he was carrying to the hip and pulled the trigger
The cap exploded but the charge did not go off
He was convicted by the Sessions Judge under sections 299 and 300 read with section 511 and not under section 307 Indian Penal Code as the learned Judge relied on a Bombay Case Regina vs Francis Cassidy 1 in which it was held that in order to constitute the offence of attempt to murder under section 307 the act committed by the person must be an act capable of causing in the natural and ordinary course of events death
Straight J both distinguished that case and did not agree with certain views expressed therein
He expressed his view thus at p 43 It seems to me that if a person who has an evil intent does an act which
is the last possible act that he could do towards the accomplishment of a particular crime that he has in his mind he is not entitled to pray in his aid an obstacle intervening not known to himself
If he did all that he could 1 All
2 1867 Bom
HC Reps
IV P 17 Crown Cases
34 262 do and completed the only remaining proximate act in his power I do not think he can escape criminal responsibility and this because his own set volition and purpose having been given effect to their full extent a fact unknown to him and at variance with his own belief intervened to prevent the consequences of that act which he expected to ensue ensuing
 Straight J gave an example earlier which itself does not seem to fit in with the view expressed by him later
He said No one would suggest that if A intending to fire the stack of B goes into a grocery shop and buys a box of matches that he has committed the offence of attempting to fire the stack of B
But if he having that intent and having bought the box of matches goes to the stack of B and lights the match but it is put out by a puff of wind and he is so prevented and interfered with that would establish in my opinion an attempt The last act for the person to set fire to the stack would have been his applying a lighted match to the stack
Without doing this act he could not have set fire and before he could do this act the lighted match is supposed to have been put out by a puff of wind
Illustration d to section 307 itself shows the incorrectness of this view
The illustration is A intending to murder Z by poison purchases poison and mixes the same with food which remains in A s keeping A has not yet committed the offence in this section
A places the food on Z s table or delivers it to Z s servants to place it on Z s table
A has committed the offence defined in this section
 A s last act contemplated in this illustration is not an act which must result in the murder of Z
The food is to be taken by Z
It is to be served to him
It may not have been possible for A to serve the food himself to Z but the fact remains that A s act in merely delivering the food to the servant is fairly remote to the food being served and being taken by Z 263 This expression of opinion by Straight J was not really with reference to the offence under section 307 but was with reference to attempts to commit any particular offence and was stated not to emphasize the necessity of committing the last act for the commission of the offence but in connection with the culprit taking advantage of an involuntary act thwarting the completion of his design by making it impossible for the offence being committed
Straight J himself said earlier For the purpose of constituting an attempt under section 307 Indian Penal Code there are two ingredients required first an evil intent or knowledge and secondly an act done In Emperor vs Vasudeo Balwant Gogte 1 a person fired several shots at another
No injury was in fact occasioned due to certain obstruction
The culprit was convicted of an offence under section 307
Beaumont C Jsaid at p 438 I think that what section 307 really means is that the accused must do an act with such a guilty intention and knowledge and in such circumstances that but for some intervening fact the act would have amounted to murder in the normal course of events
This is correct
In the present case the intervening fact which thwarted the attempt of the appellant to commit the murder of Bimla Devi was her happening to escape from the house and succeeding in reaching the hospital and thereafter securing good medical treatment
It may however be mentioned that in cases of attempt to commit murder by fire arm the act amounting to an attempt to commit murder is bound to be the only and the last act to be done by the culprit
Till he fires he does not do any act towards the commission of the offence and once he fires and something happens to prevent the shot taking effect the offence under section 307 is made out
Expressions in such cases indicate that one commits an attempt to murder only when one has committed the last act 1 Bom 434
264 necessary to commit murder
Such expressions however are not to be taken as precise exposition of the law though the statements in the context of the cases are correct
In Mi Pu vs Emperor 1 a person who had put poison in the food was convicted of an offence under section 328 read with section 511 Indian Penal Code because there was no evidence about the quantity of poison found and the probable effects of the quantity mixed in the food
It was therefore held that the accused cannot be said to have intended to cause more than hurt
The case is therefore of no bearing on the question under determination
In Jeetmal vs State 2 it was held that an act under section 307 must be one which by itself must be ordinarily capable of causing death in the natural ordinary course of events
This is what was actually held in Cassidy s Case 3 and was not approved in Niddha s Case 4 or in Gogte s Case 4
We may now refer to Rex vs White 6
In that case the accused who was indicted for the murder of his mother was convicted of attempt to murder her
It was held that the accused had put two grains of cyanide of potassium in the wine glass with the intent to murder her
It was however argued that there was no attempt at murder because the act of which he was guilty namely the putting the poison in the wine glass war a completed act and could not be and was not intended by the appellant to have the effect of killing her at once it could not kill unless it were followed by other acts which he might never have done 
This contention was repelled and it was said There seems no doubt that the learned judge in effect did tell the jury that if this was a case of slow poisoning the appellant would be guilty of the attempt to murder
We are of opinion that this direction was right and that the completion or attempted completion of one of a series of acts intended by a man to result in killing is an attempt 1 2 AIR 1950 Madhya Bharat 21
3 1867 Bom
H C Reps
IV p 17 Crown Cases
4 All
5 1032 IL R 6 265 to murder even although this completed act would not unless followed by the other acts result in killing
It might be the beginning of the attempt but would nonetheless be an attempt
This supports our view
We therefore hold that the conviction of the appellant under section 307 Indian Penal Code is correct and accordingly dismiss this appeal
Appeal dismissed


Summary:
B was married to the appellant in October 1951 but their relations got strained by 1953
She was ill treated and her health deteriorated due to maltreatment and under nourish ment
In 1956 she was deliberately starved and not allowed to leave the house in which they were living and only sometimes a morsel or so used to be thrown to her as alms are given to beggars
On June 51956 she managed to escape from the house and went to the Civil Hospital at Ludhiana
Her brother came down to Ludhiana on learning of the facts and made a complaint to the police
The doctor who attended on B sent a note to the police saying that she was seriously ill and might collapse any moment
The appellant was prosecuted for the offence of attempting to murder B under section 307 Of the Indian Penal Code
The trial Court acquitted him but on appeal the High Court came to a finding on the evidence that the object of the appellant was to confine B and deprive her of regular food in pursuance of a scheme of regular starvation in order to accelerate her end and convicted him under section 307 Of the Indian Penal Code
On behalf of the appellant it was contended inter alia that whereas under section 511 Of the Code for an Act to amount to the offence of attempting to commit an offence it need not be the last act and can be the first act towards the commission of the offence under section 307 it is the last act which if effective to cause death would constitute the offence of an attempt to commit murder and that even if B had been deprived of food for a certain period the act of so depriving her did not come under section 307 as that act could not by itself have caused her death it being necessary for the period of starvation to continue for a longer period to cause death
Held that a person commits an offence under section 307 Of the Indian Penal Code when he has an intention to commit murder and in pursuance of that intention does an act towards its commission irrespective of the fact whether that act is the penultimate act or not
Abhayanand Mishra vs The State of Bihar 1962 2 SCR 241 followed
Rex vs White  relied on
Queen vs Nidha All 38 and Emperor vs Vasudeo Balwant Gogte BOM
434 considered 255 Jeetmal vs State AIR 1950 Madhya Bharat 21 disapproved
The word act  in section 307 did not mean only a particular act of a person but denoted according to section 33 Of the Code as well a series of acts
In the present case the course of conduct adopted by the appellant in regularly starving his wife B comprised a series of acts which though they fell short of completing the series sufficient to kill her came within the purview Of section 307 Of the Indian Penal Code
The High Court was therefore right in convicting the appellant under that section