Criminal Law

Om Prakash v. State of Punjab

AIR 1961 SC 1782

Facts

Om Prakash was married to Bimla Devi.
Their relationship became strained.
Bimla temporarily left the matrimonial home but returned after assurances that she would not be ill-treated.
She was thereafter subjected to severe maltreatment.
The evidence showed that Om Prakash and members of the household:
confined her;
denied her regular food;
provided only occasional morsels;
sometimes gave her gram husk mixed with water after several days.
Bimla became extremely emaciated and physically weak.
She once attempted to escape but was brought back and beaten.
She later found the room unlocked, escaped and reached a hospital.
Doctors found her in a dangerously weakened condition.
Om Prakash was convicted of attempting to murder her under Section 307 IPC.
He argued that starvation had not continued long enough to cause death and that he had not performed the final act necessary for murder.

Whether a systematic course of starvation could constitute attempt to murder.
Whether Section 307 requires the accused to perform the final or penultimate act capable of immediately causing death.
Whether a series of acts may collectively constitute the act required for attempt.

Section 307 applies where:
the accused possesses the intention or knowledge required for murder;
he performs an act toward commission of murder.
The act need not be the final or penultimate act.
Under Section 33 IPC, the word “act” may include a series of acts.
Attempt may begin with the first act forming part of the actual execution of a continuing murderous design.
It is not necessary that the particular act, considered in isolation, must immediately cause death.
The offence remains attempt where outside intervention prevents completion of the intended fatal course of conduct.

The Court accepted the finding that Bimla’s condition resulted from calculated and deliberate starvation.
This was not a case of:
poverty;
temporary neglect;
accidental shortage of food;
ordinary domestic disagreement.
Om Prakash exercised control over her and prevented her from obtaining food independently.
The repeated deprivation formed part of a continuing scheme to accelerate her death.
Each denial of food contributed to the intended fatal process.
The defence incorrectly treated “act” as one instantaneous event.
Slow poisoning, repeated beating or systematic starvation may require several acts before death results.
The law would be ineffective if liability arose only at the very last moment, when death was almost unavoidable.
Bimla’s escape and medical treatment were external events that interrupted the course of starvation.
The fact that further deprivation would have been required for death did not return the conduct to preparation.
Actual execution had begun and had already caused severe bodily deterioration.
The intention was inferred from:
deliberate confinement;
repeated denial of food;
duration of the conduct;
her extreme condition;
efforts to take her back from the hospital.
The required murderous mens rea and an act toward its execution were therefore established.

The Supreme Court upheld the conviction under Section 307 IPC.
It held that an act for attempt to murder need not be the last act capable of immediately causing death.
The continuing series of acts by which Bimla was systematically starved constituted an attempt to murder.
Use this case for: Section 307 covers the commencement of a series of acts intended to cause death; the final or penultimate act is unnecessary.