Supreme Court Upholds Conviction Under Section 307 IPC for Attempted Murder by Starvation. Series of Acts of Starving Wife, Even if Not Penultimate, Constitutes Attempt Under Section 307 IPC.

Case Note & Summary

The present appeal arose from a criminal prosecution under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, for attempt to murder by deliberate starvation. The appellant, Om Parkash, was married to Bimla Devi in October 1951. Their relations became strained by 1953, and Bimla Devi left for her brother's house for about a year, returning only after assurances from the appellant's maternal uncle that she would not be maltreated. However, she was subsequently ill-treated and her health deteriorated due to maltreatment and deliberate under-nourishment. In 1956, she was systematically starved, confined to the house, and only occasionally thrown a morsel of food as alms are given to beggars. She was denied food for days together and sometimes given gram husk mixed in water after five or six days. In April 1956, she attempted to leave but was forcibly dragged back by the appellant's brothers, severely beaten, and locked in a room. On June 5, 1956, finding her room unlocked and her husband and mother-in-law away, she escaped to the Civil Hospital, Ludhiana, where she narrated her ordeal to a lady doctor. The appellant and his mother tried to take her back but were prevented by the doctor. Social workers informed her brother, Madan Mohan, who wrote to the police on June 16, 1956. A doctor's note stated that the patient might collapse at any moment. A magistrate recorded her statement as she was undergoing blood transfusion. Photographs taken a few days later showed extreme emaciation, hollow cheeks, skeletal appearance, and a cadaverous countenance. The High Court found the allegations of starvation and maltreatment true, rejecting the defence that her condition was due to prolonged illness. The core legal issue before the Supreme Court was whether the act of depriving a person of food for a period, which by itself could not cause death unless continued longer, could constitute an attempt to murder under Section 307 IPC. The appellant argued that under Section 307 the act must be the last act which, if effective, would cause death, unlike Section 511 where any act towards commission suffices. He further contended that a husband is not legally bound to spoon-feed his wife but only to provide funds and food. The State maintained that the deliberate course of starvation amounted to attempt to murder. The Supreme Court rejected the appellant's contentions. It held, following Abhayanand Mishra v. State of Bihar, that a person commits an offence under Section 307 when, with intention to commit murder, he does an act towards its commission, irrespective of whether that act is the penultimate act. The Court also relied on Rex v. White and considered Queen v. Nidha and Emperor v. Vasudeo Balwant Gogte, while disapproving Jeetmal v. State. It observed that the word 'act' in Section 307, read with Section 33 IPC, includes a series of acts. The course of conduct of regularly starving Bimla Devi comprised a series of acts that fell short of completing the series sufficient to kill her but nevertheless fell within Section 307. The Court also noted that the High Court's findings established the appellant's responsibility for her condition, negating the defence that he had provided food and funds. Accordingly, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the conviction under Section 307 IPC. The decision affirmed that intentional starvation as part of a scheme to accelerate death is punishable as attempt to murder, even if the victim is not immediately killed.

Headnote

Issue of Consideration

Final Decision

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the appellant's conviction under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code. It held that the series of acts of deliberate starvation fell within the scope of Section 307, even though they had not progressed to the penultimate act of causing death.

Law Points