DELHI HIGH COURT UPHOLDS CONVICTION, REDUCES SENTENCE IN ATTEMPT TO MURDER CASE

FACT OF THE CASE

The case arose out of an incident in 2013, where the complainant was allegedly attacked near a market area. According to the prosecution, two individuals intercepted him; one restrained the complainant while the other inflicted multiple stab injuries on his abdomen and chest. The injured complainant managed to reach a nearby place for help and was taken to a hospital, where he was found to have life-threatening injuries. The police recorded his statement later and collected medical and physical evidence.

ISSUE BEFORE THE COURT

The main issue before the Court was whether the conviction of the appellants under Section 307 (attempt to murder) read with Section 34 (common intention) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) should be upheld, and whether the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for five years imposed by the Trial Court required modification.

EXPLANATION OF COMPLEX TERMS

Section 307 IPC (Attempt to Murder): This provision deals with an act done with the intention or knowledge that, if it caused death, it would amount to murder. Actual death need not occur; intention and action are sufficient.
Section 34 IPC (Common Intention): When a criminal act is committed by several persons in furtherance of a common intention, each person is held liable as if they had done it individually.
Section 428 Cr.P.C.: Allows adjustment of the period already spent in custody against the total sentence imposed.

PETITIONER CONTENTIONS

The appellants initially challenged their conviction but later, during appeal, expressed remorse and chose not to press their challenge on merits. They prayed for reduction of their sentence to the period already undergone, citing their poor financial background and responsibilities as sole breadwinners of their families. They also sought reduction of the fine from ₹5,000 to ₹1,000 each.

RESPONDENT CONTENTIONS

The State opposed leniency but confirmed that neither of the appellants had any other criminal involvement. The prosecution emphasized the consistency of the injured’s testimony, the corroboration from medical evidence, and the settled principle that the testimony of an injured witness holds strong evidentiary value.

RELEVANT CASE LAW & LAW DISCUSSION

The Court relied upon established legal principles that a conviction under Section 307 IPC is valid if the act is done with requisite intent or knowledge, irrespective of whether death results. Additionally, the Court referred to Sonadhar v. State of Chhattisgarh (2021 SCC OnLine SC 3682), where the Supreme Court directed High Courts to consider early release or sentence reduction in cases where convicts had already undergone more than half of their fixed-term sentence.

COURT OBSERVATIONS

The Court observed that the testimony of the injured complainant was consistent, credible, and corroborated by medical records and physical evidence such as bloodstained clothes. It also noted that both appellants had undergone a substantial part of their sentence, had no other criminal history, and belonged to economically weaker sections of society with dependents relying on them.

COURT DIRECTIONS/JUDGMENT

The Court upheld the conviction of both appellants under Section 307/34 IPC but modified their substantive sentence to the period already undergone in custody. The fine was reduced from ₹5,000 each to ₹1,000 each, with a default sentence of 15 days’ simple imprisonment for non-payment. The appeals were thus partly allowed, and directions were issued to communicate the judgment to the Trial Court and Jail authorities for compliance.

DATE OF DECISION

26.09.2025

CASE NUMBER

CRL.A.648/2016