Madras HC Upholds Attempt-to-Murder Conviction Of Brothers Who Attacked Couple With Sickles Over Property Dispute, Cuts Term To 3 Years

The appellants were convicted under Section 307 IPC for attacking Veeraiah (PW1) and his wife (PW2) with sickles at their home at night.

The prosecution alleged that the attack arose from a property dispute; PW1 sustained simple injuries, while PW2 sustained injuries certified as grievous.

The trial court acquitted the appellants of the other charges, including offences under the SC/ST (PoA) Act, and sentenced each to five years’ rigorous imprisonment and a fine of ₹1,000.

The appellants appealed against their conviction and sentence.

Section 307 IPC requires proof of an intention or knowledge to cause death; the seriousness of the injury alone does not determine whether the offence is made out, and the required mens rea must be assessed independently from the injury.

In Roshan Lal v. State of Haryana and Another, 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 537, the Supreme Court identified the weapon, manner of assault, body parts targeted, number of blows, motive, and conduct before and after the attack as relevant circumstances from which intention may be inferred.

Section 374 CrPC provides for an appeal against conviction, while Section 428 CrPC permits set-off of imprisonment already undergone.

Where a conviction on a single count concerns attacks on two victims, an appellate court hearing only the convicted persons’ appeal should not add a count so as to worsen their position; an omission in the charge does not warrant relief absent prejudice.

The Court accepted the evidence of PW1 and PW2 as injured eyewitnesses, corroborated by independent eyewitness PW6 and the medical evidence, and found the appellants’ identity and participation proved beyond reasonable doubt.

Although PW1’s injuries were simple, the Court inferred an intention to kill from the property-dispute motive, the appellants’ arrival at night armed with sickles, repeated blows, injuries to the neck, chest and head, and the cessation of the attack only after intervention.

The Court declined to enter convictions on additional counts relating to the two victims because the appeal was brought by the appellants alone and the charge omission had not prejudiced their defence.

In sentencing, it weighed the appellants’ lack of recorded antecedents, age, prolonged proceedings, and the injuries’ outcomes against the seriousness of a premeditated armed attack at the victims’ home, and found three years’ rigorous imprisonment proportionate.

The fine of ₹1,000 imposed on each appellant remained undisturbed and, having been paid, no default sentence was prescribed.

Set-off under Section 428 CrPC was allowed; the appellants’ bail bonds were cancelled, and they were directed to surrender to serve the remaining sentence.