Meaning of Attempt

Section 511 of the IPC deals with the attempt of a crime in more formal way without
actually defining it. Attempt has not been given a proper and universal meaning
anywhere in criminal law. Syed Shamsul Huda in his book titled, “the Principles of Law in
British India” states that

“an act or a series of acts constitutes an attempt if the following are fulfilled:

 If all the steps of the offence or all the important steps of the offence have been
completed other than the consequences of the offence.
 If the offender has not completed all the necessary steps needed to complete the
crime but has proceeded far enough to entitle punishment in order to protect
society.
In order for a crime to constitute an attempt, there must be:

1. Intent to commit the crime.

2. Act towards the accomplishment of the crime.
3. Failure of that act.
An act will be considered accomplishment on the basis of two things- the means to make
sure the act is seen into completion must be adapted and it must be beyond preparation.”

Section 511 of IPC talks about the nature of the crime in general and Section 307 talks
about it in particular nature i.e. attempt to murder. Despite these sections, there is a
difference in opinion among jurists and scholars’ regarding what is the scope of attempt
on crime. The Allahabad High Court opined that Section 511 cannot be applied in cases
of attempt to murder because the same is provided for in Section 307 specifically. On
the other hand, the Bombay High Court does not second with this view. In the case
of Om Parkash vs. State of Punjab[3], the Supreme Court of India held that “just as
stated in Section 511 and in Section 307 as well, the act towards the crime need not be the
penultimate act. In this case, the act of the accused to accelerate the death of his wife by
denying her food for several days amounts to an act under Section 307.”

Statutory provisions of attempt

The attempts can be divided in 4 kinds:

1. Where the attempt and the main offence is punishable in the same manner
without any distinction.
2. When an attempt is merged into the main offence.
 3. Where the attempt are separately made punishable.
4. When attempts are made punishable in general.
The first category of offence includes attempts to offences which comes under the
category of offence against the state, forces, public peace, election, false evidence,
public morality and decency, human body as well as property.

The second category of attempts is in the cases where the attempt is a part of the
transaction. Despite being attempts, crimes are made punishable without using the
actual word ‘attempt’. Such offences include abetment, unlawful assembly and criminal
intimidation. In offences which are related to coin and against the government, every
step of the crime such as the preparation, the attempt and the completion
is prima facie punishable. Each step is seen as an offence in itself for the purpose of
these offences.

The third category is the attempts which are seen as a separate crime or offence and
have their own punishments defined under IPC. Examples include attempt to commit
murder, attempt to culpable homicide and attempt to suicide. These offences are
punishable independently.

The fourth categories are other attempts and are defined under Section 511 of IPC.

Section 511 of IPC is only applicable to a very limited set of offences. It is not applicable
to attempts of very grievous crimes, rather it is for attempts to crimes that are not
punishable by capital punishment and do not have a set of punishments prescribed in
the Indian Penal Code. It is also not applicable to such offences that are punishable by
fine only. Attempts to commit offence which are punishable by a special law or local law
are also out of the applicability of Section 511. For example, false statement in
connection with an election, making the atmosphere dangerous to health and public
nuisance.

Case laws
 Narayan Das vs. State of West Bengal[7]
In the case, the accused had undeclared notes sewn in the pants on his trousers and the
same was discovered by the customs officer. The court held that the accused went
beyond the stage of preparation. The court held that an attempt to take out currency
notes is an act punishable under the Sea Customs Act.

 Bashir Bhai Mohammed Bhai vs. the State of Bombay[8]

In the case, the accused has a complaint filed against him which states that he was in
possession of duplicate/fake currency notes. These notes were recovered by authority.
The court held that the act had gone way beyond the stage of preparation and thus it
was an attempt towards the commission of a punishable offence.

Is an Attempt a Crime?
An attempt is not necessarily a crime, it becomes when an attempt reaches a
point at which an act is done towards the commission of the offence. So, it can
be said that any attempt to commit an offence can be said to begin after the
preparations for the same are completed and the offender begins to do
something with the intention to commit an offence. The ingredients which are
required to consider it as an Attempt:

 Guilty mind
 Some act to be done in order to commit a crime

Section 511 of IPC- Punishment for attempting to

commit offences
Section 511 of the Indian Penal Code says that the punishment for attempting
to commit offences is punishable with the imprisonment for life or other
imprisonments. It says that whosoever attempts to commit an offence will be
punishable under this section either with the imprisonment or life imprisonment.
If any attempt did for the commission of an offence then there will be no
provision made by this Code for the punishment of such attempt, he will be
punished for the imprisonment for the provided term which may extend to the
one-half for the life or with a fine provided for the offence or by both.

https://blog.ipleaders.in/section-307-308-of-ipc-attempt-to-commit-murder-
and-culpable-homicide/

Scope of Section 307 and Section 308

Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code addresses an attempt to commit murder.

Whoever does the act with guilty intention or knowledge, and the person knows
that the act is likely to cause death or has a knowledge that by the act or injury
the result will be death, only then he would be held guilty of murder.
For example- Mr. T is planning to murder Mr. P. He collects some toxic
chemicals with an intention to mix it in Mr. P’s food.

Until Mr. T has served the food, he hasn’t committed any offence.

But if he places the poisoned food on Mr. P’s table, or gives it to Mr. P’s servant,
then Mr. T has committed an offence of attempt to murder.

Ingredients of this offence

 The nature of the act done.
 Intention or knowledge of committing an offence.
 The performing or executing of an offence towards it.
 The act in the ordinary course of nature will cause death.

The two most important ingredients

Knowledge or intention to commit an offence

To decide upon any act done under Section 307, the 3 essentials are-

 Nature of an act done.

 Intention or knowledge of committing an offence.
 Performing or executing of an offence towards it.
The objective of this section is that the intention or knowledge of the accused is
significant.

To constitute an offence of murder, intention or knowledge is necessary.

Without any intention or knowledge, it is difficult to determine whether there

was an ‘attempt to murder’.
The performance or executing of an offence
towards it
Just wrong and evil intent to do an act is not enough to constitute a crime. To
make the act punishable, a physical and voluntary act or omission must be
visible. The act done should also be capable of causing death in the ordinary
course of nature.

Punishment under Section 307 of IPC

Imprisonment may extend to ten years. The offender might also be liable to pay
a fine.

In an attempt to commit murder, if it results in injury to any person, then the

offender shall be imprisoned for a time period that may vary from 10 years to
life imprisonment. It may also be accompanied by any amount of penalty.

If any person is already convicted for life imprisonment, hurts someone again
with the intent to commit murder, then he will be punished with death penalty.

Section 308 of the Indian Penal Code talks about the attempt to commit
culpable homicide.

Whoever does any act with intention or knowledge,that by such an act he is

likely to cause death, he would be held guilty of culpable homicide.

For example- P shoots D as he got provoked by the words of D. If D dies, then P

will be held for culpable homicide. Whereas If D does not die then P will be held
guilty for an attempt to commit culpable homicide under this section.

Ingredients of this offence

 Nature of an act.
 Intention or knowledge of the offence.
 Likely to cause death.
 Executing their act or performing their act towards it.
  Culpable homicide not amounting to murder.

Punishment under Section 308 of IPC

Section 308 states that anyone accused under this Section will be sentenced to
either imprisonment which may extend to three years, fine, or both.

If a person is injured in the attempt to commit culpable homicide, then the

offender will be sentenced to imprisonment for a term which may extend to
seven years, or fine, or with both.

Is an attempt to commit murder and culpable homicide a bailable

and cognizable offence?
Bailable Offences- Offences in which the permission from the court to release
the arrested person is not required. The arrested person by fulfilling the
necessary requirements can be released and the police cannot refuse the
person.

Cognizable Offences- Offence in which the police has the authority to arrest any
person without any warrant and also has the authority to start an investigation
with or without any permission of the magistrate by filing FIR.

Attempt to commit murder and culpable homicide are both non-bailable and
cognizable offences.

Case laws
Liyakat Mian and Ors. V. The State of Bihar, 1973
The four appellants were held guilty under Section 395 of the IPC by the
Sessions Court for committing dacoity in the house of Hardeo Mahton.
During the trial, it was held that appellant No. 2 will also be charged for attempt
to commit murder under Section 307 of IPC. While the appellants were
committing dacoity, appellant No. 2 fired a gun at Burhan Mahton which injured
him gravely.

The Sessions Court held that Burhan Mahton died because he succumbed to the
injuries caused by accused No. 2 and the accused No.2 would be held guilty of
attempt to murder under Section 307.

The Trial Court convicted the accused under Section 395 for dacoity and
under Section 307 for an attempt to murder. He punished all the accused of
dacoity and gave them nine years imprisonment. The accused was also
sentenced to nine years of rigorous imprisonment. It was held that accused no.
2 will serve both punishments simultaneously.

The four convicts filed for an appeal before the High Court. The High Court
upheld the decision of the Trial Court and dismissed their plea.

The Apex Court considered all the evidence and dismissed their appeals.

Bishan Singh & Anr Vs. The State [2007] Insc 1015 (9 October
2007)

Facts of the case

Bishan Singh and Govind Ballabh were convicted for the commission of an
offence under Section 147 and 308/149 of the Indian Penal Code. Out of a
group of 6, they were the only two who had survived. Harish Bhatt, the plaintiff,
was assaulted by the accused with lathis. They also took out Rs.400 out of his
pocket. In order to save him, the plaintiff’s brother Ghanshyam intervened. But
all of the accused attacked Harish Bhatt with an intention to kill him. As a
result, Harish Bhatt did not die but received several grievous injuries because of
their attack.

Trial Court
The trial judge convicted the appellant under Section 147 IPC for rioting and
under 308/149 of IPC. The court sentenced them to imprisonment for one year
under Section 147 IPC and four years under Section 308/149 IPC.
In his FIR, the informant said they were threatened by the accused. They
argued that the act was done with the intention of murder, but the offence was
recorded under 147 and 323 of IPC when it should be recorded under Section
308.

The judge after analysing the non-presence of the ingredient of Section 308,
convicted them under Section 323 and 325.

Rambabu vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 1 April 2019

In this case, the appellant was convicted under Section 307 of India Penal Code.
The court sentenced him to five years of imprisonment and charged him of Rs.
5000 as a penalty.

The court held that the appellant was guilty under Section 307 and the bail will
not be granted. The Court also held that injuries on the other person, regardless
of their severity, would attract punishment under Section 307. All the injuries
will be considered as an offence and the person committing will be held guilty.

Section 309 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860

Section 309 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 reads as, “Whoever attempts to
commit suicide and does any act towards the commission of such offence, shall
be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year
or with fine, or with both.” The intention of the legislature while formulating this
provision was clear as the provision implies that if someone tries to commit
suicide and fails to achieve his or her goal, he or she may face simple
imprisonment for up to one year, a fine, or both.

Section 309: Constitutional or Unconstitutional?

There have been different views regarding the constitutionality of section 309 of
the IPC. The Bombay High court and the Andhra Pradesh High court has held a
different opinion regarding the constitutionality of section 309 of the IPC

Constitutionality of section 309 Of Indian Penal Code first came up for

consideration before the Bombay High Court in State of Maharashtra V.
Maruti Sripati Dubal(1986) 88 Bom LR 589. In this case the Bombay High
Court held that right to die is included under 'right to life ' enshrined under
Article 21 of the constitution and hence section 309 violates the Fundamental
Rights of the citizens, so the court struck down section 309 of the IPC and held
section 309 to be unconstitutional.

The Andhra Pradesh High court in Chenna Jagdeshwar V. State of Andhra

Pradesh (1988) cr LJ 549 held that right to die is not a fundamental right
within the meaning of Article 21 of the Indian Constitution and hence section
309 of the IPC is not unconstitutional.

These two different views of the High courts was settled by a division bench of
the apex court in P. Rathinam V. Union of India (1994) 3 SCC 394, The
Supreme court held that views expressed by the Bombay High Court in State of
Maharashtra V. Maruti Sripati Dubal (1986) 88 Bom LR 589 is right and
stated that a person has a right to die and declared section 309
unconstitutional. In the case, the petitioner challenged the validity of section
309 on the ground that it was violative of Article 14 and 21 of the constitution.

The court held that section 309 of the IPC was a cruel and irrational
provision. It was held that Article 21 also includes 'right not to live a forced life
and hence court approved the decision of the Bombay High court in State of
Maharashtra V. Maruti Sripati Dubal (1986) 88 Bom LR 589.

The decision of the apex court in P. Rathinam's case and the judgment
of the Bombay high court in Maruti Sripati Dubal's case raises many
questions:

I. This ruling will impact the young and immature minds that tend to act or
react in haste.
II. Right to die an unnatural death should not be included under Article 21 of
the Constitution.
III. What about those people who in the disguise of protest threatens to kill
themselves if their demands are not meet, in front of government offices.
IV. Suicide owing to frustration in love, failure in examinations, and failure to
get a job is not a solution and should not be encouraged. This would raise
many social problems.
V. Even different religions across the globe be it, Hinduism Islam,
Christianity, Jainism or Buddhism treats Suicide as a negative act.

To provide some clarity regarding the right to die and constitutionality of section
309 of the IPC, The constitution bench of the Supreme Court in Gian Kaur V.
State of Punjab (1996) 2 SCC 648 held that right to die under Article 21 of
the constitution does not include right to die or right to be killed

Justice J.S Verma observed: Right to life is a natural right embodied in Article
21 but suicide is an unnatural termination or extinction of life and incompatible
and inconsistent with the concept of right to life.
The court held made it clear that the right to life including the right to live with
human dignity would mean the existence of such a right up to the end of
natural life. Right to die with dignity at the end of life is not to be confused with
the right to die an unnatural death curtailing the natural span of life. The court
accordingly held that section 309 of IPC is not violative of Article 21 of the
constitution.

The apex court overruled its own judgment in P.Rathinam's case and set
aside the Bombay High Court order in State of Maharashtra V. Maruti
Sripati Dubal (1986) 88 Bom LR 589 and upheld the judgment of the Andhra
Pradesh High court in Chenna Jagdeshwar V. State of Andhra
Pradesh (1988) cr LJ 549, which declared section 309 of the IPC constitutional.

So it is finally settled that Section 309 of the IPC is constitutional and it does
not violate Article 14 and 21 of the Indian Constitution.

One of the important observation of the Supreme Court is not widely known to
the public at large is that while delivering judgment in Gian Kaur V. State of
Punjab (1996) 2 SCC 648 the Supreme court held that there is no requirement
of awarding any minimum sentence. The sentence of imprisonment or fine is
not compulsory but discretionary.