Supreme Court Restores Attempt to Murder Conviction: Key Analysis of Intention in IPC Section 307 Cases

The Supreme Court of India recently delivered a significant judgment in Criminal Appeal No. 476 of 2015, involving the State of Himachal Pradesh and Shamsher Singh. This case revolves around the interpretation of Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and the distinction between ‘attempt to murder’ and ‘grievous hurt’. The judgment reinstates the trial court’s conviction under Section 307 IPC, emphasizing the importance of assessing intention and knowledge in criminal law.

Background of the Case

On November 5, 2010, during Diwali celebrations, Shamsher Singh, a constable posted at the 2nd Indian Reserve Battalion in Chamba, Himachal Pradesh, opened fire with his service weapon (an AK-47 rifle) at colleagues after a dispute over the quality of food in the mess. Constable Sanjeet Kumar (PW-2) sustained bullet injuries in both thighs, leading to hospitalization for over a month. The trial court convicted Shamsher Singh under Section 307 IPC (attempt to murder) and Section 27 of the Arms Act, sentencing him to seven years of rigorous imprisonment. The High Court, however, acquitted him of these charges, convicting him instead under Section 326 IPC (grievous hurt) and reducing his sentence to the time already served (1 year and 5 months).

Arguments Before the Supreme Court

Petitioner (State of Himachal Pradesh): The state argued that the High Court erred in acquitting Shamsher Singh of the Section 307 charge. It stressed that the accused, as a trained constable, knew firing an AK-47 could cause death. The act of indiscriminate firing, coupled with multiple injuries, demonstrated clear intent to murder. The state cited State of M.P. vs. Kanha (2019) and State of M.P. vs. Saleem (2005), where similar firearm offenses were held to attract Section 307 IPC regardless of injury severity.

Respondent (Shamsher Singh): The defense contended that the injuries were not life-threatening and lacked specific targeting. They argued the act was impulsive, driven by momentary anger over food quality and firecracker noise, negating murderous intent. The High Court’s acquittal under Section 307 was justified, as the prosecution failed to prove ‘intention or knowledge’ to cause death.

Supreme Court’s Analysis

Justices Pankaj Mithal and S.V.N. Bhatti underscored that Section 307 IPC hinges on the accused’s ‘intention or knowledge’ to cause death, not merely the injury’s outcome. The court observed:

“To attract Section 307 IPC, it is not necessary that the hurt should be grievous or of any particular degree. If hurt of any nature is caused and it is proved that there was intention or knowledge to cause death, Section 307 IPC would stand attracted.”

The bench emphasized that the nature of the weapon (AK-47), the act of firing multiple rounds, and the context (targeting colleagues in a confined space) indicated Shamsher Singh’s awareness that his actions could result in death. The court rejected the High Court’s narrow focus on injury severity, stating:

“The multiplicity of wounds, caused by a lethal firearm, and the accused’s position as a trained constable leave no doubt about his intention to cause death.”

Referencing State of M.P. vs. Kanha, the judges noted that even non-fatal injuries from firearms warrant Section 307 if intent is established. They criticized the High Court for overlooking precedents and restoring the trial court’s conviction.

Modification of Sentence

While reinstating the Section 307 conviction, the Supreme Court reduced the sentence from seven years to the time already served (1 year and 5 months). The bench considered factors like the incident’s occurrence in 2010, the accused’s disciplinary service background, and the “rage of anger” during the act. However, they cautioned:

“The reduction in sentence should not be misread as leniency toward firearm offenses. Courts must balance justice with proportionality.”

Conclusion

This judgment clarifies the legal standards for ‘attempt to murder’ under Section 307 IPC, stressing that intention and weapon lethality outweigh injury outcomes. It serves as a precedent for cases involving firearm misuse, reinforcing that trained personnel cannot plead ignorance about a weapon’s deadly potential. The decision also highlights the judiciary’s role in balancing strict legal interpretation with contextual sentencing.

Petitioner Name: State of Himachal Pradesh.
Respondent Name: Shamsher Singh.
Judgment By: Justice Pankaj Mithal, Justice S.V.N. Bhatti.
Place Of Incident: District Chamba, Himachal Pradesh.
Judgment Date: 16-04-2025.
Result: allowed.

Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!

Download Judgment: state-of-himachal-pr-vs-shamsher-singh-supreme-court-of-india-judgment-dated-16-04-2025.pdf

Directly Download Judgment: Directly download this Judgment

See all petitions in Attempt to Murder Cases
See all petitions in Custodial Deaths and Police Misconduct
See all petitions in Bail and Anticipatory Bail
See all petitions in Theft and Robbery Cases
See all petitions in Fraud and Forgery
See all petitions in Judgment by Pankaj Mithal
See all petitions in Judgment by S.V.N. Bhatti
See all petitions in allowed
See all petitions in Modified
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments April 2025
See all petitions in 2025 judgments

See all posts in Criminal Cases Category
See all allowed petitions in Criminal Cases Category
See all Dismissed petitions in Criminal Cases Category
See all partially allowed petitions in Criminal Cases Category