Writ Jurisdiction Not Appropriate For Adjudicating Complex Title Disputes; Mutation Entries Do Not Confer Ownership: Madhya Pradesh High Court Joint Account Holder Not Liable Under Section 138 NI Act If Not A Signatory To Dishonoured Cheque: Allahabad High Court Private Individuals Accepting Money Can Be Prosecuted Under MPID Act; Nomenclature As 'Loan' Irrelevant: Supreme Court Nomenclature Of Transaction As 'Loan' Irrelevant; If Ingredients Met, It Is A 'Deposit' Under MPID Act: Supreme Court Pleadings Must State Material Facts, Not Evidence; Deficiency In Pleading Cannot Be Raised For First Time In Appeal: Supreme Court Denial Of Remission Cannot Rest Solely On Heinousness Of Crime; Justice Doesn't Permit Permanent Incarceration In Shadow Of Worst Act: Supreme Court Second Application For Rejection Of Plaint Barred By Res Judicata If Earlier Order Attained Finality: Supreme Court Section 6(5) Hindu Succession Act Is A Saving Clause, Not A Jurisdictional Bar To Partition Suits: Supreme Court Sale Of Natural Gas Via Common Carrier Pipelines Is An Inter-State Sale; UP Has No Jurisdiction To Levy VAT: Supreme Court Mediclaim Reimbursement Not Deductible From Motor Accident Compensation; Tortfeasor Can’t Benefit From Claimant’s Prudence: Supreme Court Rules Of Procedure Are Handmaid Of Justice, Not Mistress; Striking Off Defence Under Order XV Rule 5 CPC Is Not Mechanical: Supreme Court Power To Strike Off Tenant's Defense Under Order XV Rule 5 CPC Is Discretionary, Not To Be Exercised Mechanically: Supreme Court Areas Urbanised Before 1959 Don't Require Separate Notification To Fall Under Delhi Rent Control Act: Delhi High Court Police Cannot Freeze Bank Accounts To Perform Compensatory Justice; Direct Nexus With Offence Essential: Bombay High Court FSL Probe Before Electronic Evidence Meets Section 65B Admissibility Standards: Gujarat High Court Court Shouldn't Adjudicate Rights At Stage Of Granting Leave Under Section 92 CPC, Only Prima Facie Case Required: Allahabad High Court Right To Seek Bail Based On Non-Furnishing Of 'Grounds Of Arrest' Applies Only Prospectively From November 6, 2025: Madras High Court Prior Exposure To Accused Before TIP Renders Identification Meaningless: Delhi High Court Acquits Four In Uphaar Cinema Murder Case No Particular Format Prescribed For 'Proposed Resolution' In No-Confidence Motion; Intention Of Members To Be Gathered From Document As A Whole: Orissa High Court Trial Court Cannot Grant Temporary Injunction Without Adverting To Allegations Of Fraud And Collusion: Calcutta High Court "Ganja" Definition Under NDPS Act Excludes Roots & Stems: Karnataka High Court Grants Bail As Seized Weight Included Whole Plants Right To Speedy Trial Under Article 21 Doesn't Displace Section 37 NDPS Mandate In Commercial Quantity Cases: Orissa High Court

Supreme Court Modifies Conviction Under Section 307 IPC to Sections 323 and 324 in Vellore Assault Case

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a recent judgment, the Supreme Court of India has altered the conviction of two appellants, Sivamani and Dinesh Kumar, from Section 307 (attempt to murder) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) to Sections 323 and 324 (causing simple hurt). The judgment was passed on 28th November 2023, in the case of Sivamani and Anr. Vs. State Represented by Inspector of Police, Vellore Taluk Police Station, Vellore District, with the bench comprising Justices Vikram Nath and Ahsanuddin Amanullah.

This criminal appeal, numbered 3619 of 2023, originated from a Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.5136 of 2022. The appellants challenged the High Court’s affirmation of their conviction under Section 307 IPC and the reduction of their sentence from 10 years to 5 years Rigorous Imprisonment.

The case revolved around an assault incident stemming from a land dispute. The appellants, along with others, were accused of conspiring and attempting to murder the complainant (PW1) in his grocery shop, leading to the initial conviction under Section 307 IPC by the trial court.

In its detailed judgment, the Supreme Court highlighted that the injuries inflicted on the victims were simple and did not indicate an intent to kill, which is a requisite for conviction under Section 307 IPC. The Court, referring to precedents like State of Madhya Pradesh v Saleem and others, emphasized the importance of assessing the severity of injuries and the intent behind the act to ascertain the appropriateness of the charges.

Modifying the High Court’s judgment, the Supreme Court ruled that the conviction under Section 307 IPC was unsustainable and altered it to Sections 323 and 324 IPC. The sentence was reduced to the period already undergone by the appellants, and the imposed fine was maintained.

 Date of Decision: 28th November 2023

SIVAMANI AND ANR. VS STATE REPRESENTED BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE

 

Latest Legal News