Madras HC Cuts Attempt-to-Murder Term To 5 Years For Man Who Cut Off Sleeping Friend’s Genitals

The appellant and PW1 were friends. After a quarrel two days earlier, the appellant allegedly entered PW1’s home at midnight, stamped on his chest, severed his private part with a knife, and fled with it.

PW1 identified the appellant, and the severed part and knife were later recovered following the appellant’s disclosure.

The Assistant Sessions Court convicted him under Sections 452 and 307 of the IPC, sentencing him to three years’ simple imprisonment under Section 452 and seven years’ simple imprisonment under Section 307, with fines; the sentences were concurrent.

The appellant appealed, disputing identity and trespass and arguing, alternatively, that the offence fell under Section 326 rather than Section 307.

Section 452 of the IPC applies to house-trespass committed after preparation for causing hurt, assault, or wrongful restraint; breaking open a door is not an ingredient of the offence.

Section 307 requires an act done with the intention or knowledge, and in circumstances such that, if death had resulted, the offender would have been guilty of murder; intention or knowledge is assessed from the circumstances, including motive, weapon, targeted body part, and manner of assault. The injury need not itself be sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death.

Section 326 applies where grievous hurt is caused with a dangerous weapon but without the intention or knowledge required by Section 307.

No judicial precedents were cited in the judgment.

The Court accepted PW1’s evidence, noting that he knew the appellant, was awake during the attack, heard him shouting, and was attacked at close quarters; PW1’s mother and sister also identified the appellant as he fled. The recoveries following the appellant’s disclosure further corroborated the identification, while the defence suggestions of darkness, another possible assailant, and the unbroken door did not displace the prosecution evidence.

The Court found the elements of Section 452 established because the appellant entered the home at midnight, armed with a knife and intending to cause hurt; how he entered was immaterial.

For Section 307, it relied on the prior motive, the return to PW1’s home with a knife while PW1 was asleep, the deliberate manner of the attack, the removal of the severed part, and the doctor’s evidence that the wound could cause death if untreated. Together, these circumstances established the requisite intention or knowledge, rather than merely grievous hurt under Section 326.

The Court reduced the Section 307 sentence after considering the appellant’s age at the time of the offence and the absence of previous bad antecedents.

The Section 452 sentence and fines were maintained; substantive sentences were to run concurrently, with set-off for time already served. The appellant’s bail was cancelled and he was directed to surrender to serve the remaining sentence. The deposited sum of Rs. 50,000 was directed to be paid to the victim as compensation.