SIVAMANI AND ANR.  versus STATE REPRESENTED BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE, VELLORE TALUK POLICE STATION, VELLORE DISTRICT
[2023] 14 S.C.R. 849, Supreme Court of India, 2023
Outcome: Disposed off
Segment: Facts
[2023] 14 S.C.R. 849 : 2023 INSC 1027
849
CASE DETAILS
SIVAMANI AND ANR. 
v. 
STATE REPRESENTED BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE, VELLORE 
TALUK POLICE STATION, VELLORE DISTRICT
(Criminal Appeal No. 3619 of 2023)
NOVEMBER 28, 2023
[VIKRAM NATH AND AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH, JJ.]
HEADNOTES
Issue for consideration:  Victims sustained simple injuries. Whether 
Courts below were justiﬁ ed in convicting appellants u/s. 307 IPC.
Penal Code, 1860 – ss. 323, 324 and 307 –  Trial Court convicted 
appellants (accused Nos.3 and 4) u/s. 307, IPC and sentenced to 10 years’ 
rigorous imprisonment – High Court reduced the imprisonment from 
10 years to 5 years – Propriety:
Held: PW1 and accused no.1 had a dispute concerning a lane between 
their houses – A civil case regarding the same was also pending between 
them –  Accused nos. 1, 2 and 5 along with appellants (accused Nos.3 and 
4) reached the shop of PW-1 – Accused No.2 is stated to have abused PW1 
and beaten him – The appellants (accused Nos.3 and 4) tried to attack PW1 
with a knife, but PW1 escaped from their attack and caught hold of the 
appellants’ hands, as a result of which, sustained abrasion injuries on his 
right shoulder and left thumb – PW2 (PW1’s mother) was also injured – 
PW13 (doctor) found injuries to be simple in nature – Having considered 
the facts and circumstances of the case the impugned judgment of the High 
Court requires to be interfered with – Admittedly, there is no allegation of 
repeated or severe blows having been
inﬂ icted – Even the injuries on PW1 
and PW2 have been found to be simple in nature, which is an additional 
point in the appellants’ favour – From the materials available on record, 
only oﬀ ences u/ss. 323 and 324 of the IPC can be made out – As such, the 
conviction u/s. 307, IPC is unsustainable. [Paras 5, 6, 9, 10, 11]
850 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2023] 14 S.C.R.
LISTS OF CITATIONS AND OTHER REFERENCES
State of Madhya Pradesh v Saleem, (2005) 5 SCC 554: [2005] 1 Suppl. 
SCR 562; Jage Ram v State of Haryana, (2015) 11 SCC 366: [2015] 11 
SCR 1004; State of Madhya Pradesh v Kanha, (2019) 3 SCC 605: [2019] 
1 SCR 1074 – referred to.
OTHER CASE DETAILS INCLUDING IMPUGNED 
ORDER AND APPEARANCES
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal 
No.3619 of 2023.
From the Judgment and Order dated 06.08.2021 of the High Court of 
Judicature at Madras in CRLA No.228 of 2015.
Appearances:
S. Nagamuthu, Sr. Adv., M. P. Parthiban, Ms. Priyaranjani Nagamuthu, 
R. Sudhakaran, G. R. Vikash, Bilal Mansoor, Advs. for the Appellants.
Dr. Joseph Aristotle S., Ms. Shubhi Bhardwaj, Ms. Vaidehi Rastogi, 
Advs. for the Respondent.
JUDGMENT / ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT
JUDGMENT
AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. Leave granted. 
3. The present appeal is directed against the Final Order and Judgment 
dated 06.08.2021 (hereinafter referred to as the “Impugned Judgment”) 
passed by the High Court of Judicature at Madras (hereinafter referred 
to as the “High Court”) in Criminal Appeal No.228 of 2015, whereby the 
appeal ﬁ led by the appellants against their conviction by the Trial Court 
under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to 
as the “IPC”) and imposition of ﬁ ne of Rs.1000/- each has been conﬁ rmed, 
but the sentence of 10 years Rigorous
Imprisonment has been reduced to 5 
years Rigorous Imprisonment.
851
THE FACTUAL PRISM:
4. The appellants along with three others were named by the 
Complainant in First Information Report No.409/12 dated 15.09.2012 under 
Sections 294(b), 323, 324, 452 and 307 read with 109 of the IPC accusing 
them of a conspiracy to cause the death of the Complainant. Upon trial, 
the Accused Nos.1, 2 and 5 were acquitted and the appellants, who were 
Accused Nos.3 and 4 were convicted under Section 307, IPC and sentenced 
to 10 years’ Rigorous Imprisonment and ﬁ ned Rs.1000/- each. The appeal 
preferred by the appellants before the High Court did not succeed in full, 
and only resulted in the sentence of Rigorous Imprisonment being reduced 
from 10 years to 5 years. This gives rise to the present appeal.
SUBMISSIONS BY THE APPELLANTS:
5. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the case of the 
prosecution is that there was previous enmity between the Complainant-
Prakash alias Chinnaraj/PW1 and Accused No.1. He detailed the prosecution 
story as follows. It was submitted that PW1 and Accused No.1 had a dispute 
concerning a lane between their houses. A civil case in such respect was 
also pending between them. During the pendency of the suit, an Advocate 
Commissioner was appointed through the Court, who measured the land in 
dispute and allotted portions to Accused No.1 and PW1. PW1 had put up 
fencing within the portion allotted to him, and on account of this, Accused 
No.1 used to quarrel with him. Fifteen days prior to the incident,
Accused 
No.1 had removed the fencing and again picked up a quarrel with PW1 and 
threatened to kill him. Pursuant thereto, Accused No.1 conspired with the 
Accused Nos.2, 3, 4 and 5 to put an end to the life of PW1. Consequently, 
on 15.09.2012, while PW1 was in his grocery shop, on the instigation of 
Accused No.1, Accused Nos.2 and 5 along with the appellants (Accused 
Nos.3 and 4) reached the shop. Accused No.2 is stated to have abused PW1 
in ﬁ lthy and obscene language and beaten him with force on his cheek by 
hand. The appellants tried to attack PW1 with a knife, but PW1 escaped 
from their attack and caught hold of the appellants’ hands, as a result of 
which, sustained abrasion injuries on his right shoulder and left thumb. 
On hearing this alarm, PW2-Indirani (PW1’s mother) came to his rescue 
and at that time, the Accused No.5 attacked her with a cold drink bottle on 
her back, causing a simple injury. Meanwhile, the neighbours came to the 
SIVAMANI v. STATE REPRESENTED BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE, 
VELLORE TALUK POLICE STATION, VELLORE DISTRICT 
[AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH, J.]
852 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2023] 14 S.C.R.
scene of occurrence and tried to save PW1 and on seeing them, the Accused 
Nos.2 and 5 escaped in an auto-rickshaw. The appellants were caught by the 
villagers and were tied to a streetlamp post. Thereafter, they were produced 
before the respondent-police by the villagers.
6. However, it was pointed out that the allegations against all the 
accused being more or less similar in nature, the appellants could not have 
been convicted under Section 307, IPC as the doctor (PW13) itself found 
the injuries to be simple in nature and not on any vital part of the body. 
Moreover, it was submitted that there was no intention to kill; neither there 
were repeated blows, nor was it pre-planned, when admittedly there was a 
civil suit pending between Accused No.1 and PW1. It was submitted that 
even the prosecution story would indicate that a quarrel had arisen between 
the Accused No.1 and PW1, due to which a complaint to the police was 
made by PW1, which further aggravated the enmity. The appellants are 
alleged to have come to the shop of the Complainant, when he was alone, 
armed with one knife each and attempted to attack the complainant on 
his neck but he managed to escape unhurt. It was submitted that had the 
appellants come with the motive to kill both PW1 and PW2 and were armed 
with knives, they could easily have ensured the death of the Complainant. 
Learned counsel submitted that in any view of the matter, there could have
been some justiﬁ cation to proceed against the appellants under Sections 323 
and 324 of the IPC but not under Section 307, IPC, as has been done. It was 
submitted that the two victims had sustained only simple injuries, whereas 
one victim-PW2 had complained that she had fallen upon being attacked 
on her back but she did not sustain any extraordinary injury and even that 
was found to be simple in nature. Likewise, the other victim PW1 sustained 
abrasion injuries on his right shoulder and left thumb which are simple in 
nature.
SUBMISSIONS OF THE RESPONDENT-STATE/POLICE:
7. Learned counsel for the State submitted that the appellants being 
armed with knives (one each) clearly indicates that they intended to kill and 
it was only due to providence that their lives were saved.
ANALYSIS, REASONING AND CONCLUSION:
8. Section 307, IPC reads as under:
853
‘307. Attempt to murder.—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 ﬁ ne; and if hurt is caused to any 
person by such act, the oﬀ ender shall be liable either to imprisonment 
for life, or to such punishment as is hereinbefore mentioned.
Attempts by life convicts.—When any person oﬀ ending under this 
section is under sentence of imprisonment for life, he may, if hurt is 
caused, be punished with death.
Illustrations
(a) A shoots at Z with intention to kill him, under such 
circumstances that, if death ensued, A would be guilty of murder. A is 
liable to punishment under this section.
(b) A, with the intention of causing the death of a child of tender 
years, exposes it in a desert place. A has committed the oﬀ ence deﬁ ned 
by this section, though the death of the child does not ensue.
(c) A, intending to murder Z, buys a gun and loads it. A has not 
yet committed the oﬀ ence. A ﬁ res the gun at Z. He has committed the 
oﬀ ence deﬁ ned in this section, and, if by such ﬁ ring he wounds Z, 
he is liable to the punishment provided by the latter part of the ﬁ rst 
paragraph of this section.
(d) 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
oﬀ ence 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 oﬀ ence deﬁ ned in this section.’
9. In State of Madhya Pradesh v Saleem, (2005) 5 SCC 554, the Court 
held that to sustain a conviction under Section 307, IPC, it was not necessary 
that a bodily injury capable of resulting in death should have been inﬂ icted. 
As such, non-conviction under Section 307, IPC on the premise only that 
simple injury was inﬂ icted does not follow as a matter of course. In the 
same judgment, it was pointed out that ‘…The court has to see whether the 
SIVAMANI v. STATE REPRESENTED BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE, 
VELLORE TALUK POLICE STATION, VELLORE DISTRICT 
[AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH, J.]
854 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2023] 14 S.C.R.
act, irrespective of its result, was done with the intention or knowledge and 
under circumstances mentioned in the section.’ The position that because 
a fatal injury was not sustained alone does not dislodge Section 307, IPC 
conviction has been reiterated in Jage Ram v State of Haryana, (2015) 11 
SCC 366 and State of Madhya Pradesh v Kanha, (2019) 3 SCC 605. Yet, in 
Jage Ram (supra) and Kanha (supra), it was observed that while grievous 
or life-threatening injury was not necessary to maintain a conviction under 
Section 307, IPC, ‘The intention of the accused can be ascertained from 
the actual injury, if any, as well as from surrounding circumstances. Among 
other things, the nature of the weapon used and the severity of the blows 
inﬂ icted can be considered to infer intent.’1
10. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case and 
submissions of learned counsel for the parties, this Court is convinced that 
the Impugned Judgment of the High Court requires to be interfered with. 
Admittedly, there is no allegation of repeated or severe blows having been 
inﬂ icted. Even the injuries on PW1 and PW2 have been found to be simple 
in nature, which is an additional point in the appellants’ favour.
11. We are further inclined to accept the submissions of the learned 
counsel for the appellants that from the materials on record, only oﬀ ences 
under Sections 3232 and 3243 of the IPC can be made out. As such, the
conviction under Section 307, IPC is unsustainable.
12. In the background of the discussions made hereinabove and on 
taking an overall view, the Impugned Judgment is varied only to the extent 
1 
Para 13 of Kanha (supra).
2 
323. Punishment for voluntarily causing hurt.—Whoever, except in the case provided 
for by Section 334, voluntarily causes hurt, shall be punished with imprisonment of 
either description for a term which may extend to one year, or with ﬁ ne which may 
extend to one thousand rupees, or with both.’
3 
‘324. Voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons or means.—Whoever, except 
in the case provided for by Section 334, voluntarily causes hurt by means of any 
instrument for shooting, stabbing or cutting, or any instrument which, used as a 
weapon of oﬀ ence, is likely to cause death, or by means of ﬁ re or any heated substance, 
or by means of any poison or any corrosive substance, or by means of any explosive 
substance or by means of any substance which it is deleterious to the human body to 
inhale, to swallow, or to receive into the blood, or by means of any animal, shall be 
punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three 
years, or with ﬁ ne, or with both.’
855
that the conviction of the appellants stands modiﬁ ed to that under Sections 
323 and 324 of the IPC and the sentence imposed is also reduced to the 
period already undergone. The ﬁ ne imposed is maintained. The appellants 
stand discharged of the liabilities of their bail bonds, if any.
13. The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Headnotes prepared by:  
Appeal disposed.
Ankit Gyan
SIVAMANI v. STATE REPRESENTED BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE, 
VELLORE TALUK POLICE STATION, VELLORE DISTRICT 
[AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH, J.]