Issue 2 Whether the application of charges of Section-307 under Sinnoh penal code

is justifiable?

The counsel from the side of defence hereby humbly submits that the charges of Section 307
on Robert are not justified in any way possible. It is humbly contended that the acts if Robert
doesn't satisfy the basic essential ingredients of Section 307.

Section 307 of the code1 states that Whoever does any act with such intention or knowledge,
and under such circumstances that, if he by that act caused death, he would be guilty of
murder, shall be punished.

It is submitted that Attempt refers to an intentional preparatory action which fails in its object
and which fails through circumstances independent of the person who seeks it's
accomplishment2.

And in the present case Robert had no prior intention to hurt or to murder Jessica. The fact
sheet shows no preparation from the side of Robert which is one of the prominent element to
constitute any crime.

Furthermore It is submitted that essential ingredients include;

1: Act done with intent or knowledge
2: Act committed must be capable of causing death

1- Act done with intent or knowledge:

It is submitted that to complete the offence of Attempt it must be established that the act was
done with some intention or knowledge. The Supreme Court in one of the cases held that a
person commits an offence under this section when he has an intention to commit murder and
in pursuance of that intention does an act towards its commission irrespective of the fact that
wether that act is in the penultimate act or not3.

Also in the case of Vasudeo Gogte4 it was held that to support the conviction under thsi
section the accused should have done the act with such guilty intention or knowledge and in
such circumstances that some intervening act, the act would have amounted to murder in
normal course of events.

With the submission of the above mentioned precedents the counsel would highlight to the
fact of the case that Robert being the lover of Jessica had no intention to cause harm to her, as
mentioned in the facts he had carried a knife just to remind Jessica her old days back as to
how they both fell in love.

1 Indian Penal Code, 1860

2 Luxman, 1899 2 Bom LR 286
3 Om Prakash, AIR 1961 SC 1782
4 1932 34 Bom LR 571, 56 Bom 434
In addition to it, it is submitted that the act of Robert putting knife on the neck was an act of
private defence as he was having a subsequent dager to his life from the mob and in the case
of State of Maharashtra vs Balram Bama Patil5 also it was observed that though the nature of
injury gives a vital clue to the iintention of the accused but it may also be adduced from the
circumstances of the case without looking at the actual wound.

It is contended that Robert putting knife against Jessica’s neck was just due the circumstances
so caused bby the act of Stephen throwing stone at him which subsequently became the
reason of the crowd taking him (Robert) as a dangerous person to Jessica and it is submitted
that if the circumstances would not have gone against him he had nothing in the mind to take
physical hold of her and cause bodily injury to her.

2: Act committed must be capable of causing death

Moreover the second essential element of Section 307 is that the act committed must be
capable of causing death to the person and in regards to the same it is submitted that to
constitute an act to be capable to cause death the element of injury to the vital part of body
needs to be established, and as per the facts of the case, it is silent as to on what part of the
neck the knife was actually placed.

The counsel hereby humbly contends that every part of the neck is not capable of causing
death to a person. Injury needs to be at a particular area of the neck to actually cause instant
death and since the counsel has already established that there was no intent of the accused
(Robert) to murder Jessica the area remains to be in question as where the knife was placed.

In the case of Niddha6 it was observed that a person is criminally responsible for an attempt
to murder only in the case when he has done the last proximate act necessary to constitute the
completed offence and the completion is only prevented by some cause independent of its
volition.
In the present case it is evident that since there has been no intention of the accused to hurt
Jessica the proximity of him attempting the murder and being prevented doesnt gets into
picture.
In one of the similar case of Seo Chand7 where only a simple incised wound amounting to a
simple hurt was caused, it was held that accused should not be covicted for attempt to muder
under Section 307.
Conclusively it is submitted that in the case of Om Prakash vs State of UP8 it was held that
the court has to see the presence of intention behind the act to come to any conclusion. A
similar view was also held in the case of Hari Singh where the supreme court said that thr
intention or knowledge of the accused must be such as is necessary to constitute murder.
Without intention there can be no offence of attempt to murder.

5 AIR 1983 SC 305: 1983 CrLJ 331

6 1891 14 All 38
7 1977 CrLJ NOC 172
8 1996 CrLJ 603
The counsel from the side of defence hereby contends that as established by the above
mentioned precedents and submitted arguments, it is clear that Robert had no intention to hurt
or murder Jessica and hence the cahrges raised against him must be struck off.