Pushing Victim from Moving Train During Robbery Without Specific Intent Does Not Constitute Attempted Murder

On September 14, 2018, the victim (Aman), a student at Hansraj College, was traveling by train from Delhi to Sonipat.

While he was standing near the coach entrance using his mobile phone, the Respondent (Ashish Kumar) snatched the phone. As the victim resisted, the Respondent pushed him out of the moving train.

The victim fell onto the tracks, and his leg was subsequently amputated after being run over by the train.

The Respondent fled with the phone but was later identified and apprehended.

The Trial Court convicted the Respondent under Sections 392 (robbery) and 394 (voluntarily causing hurt in committing robbery) of the IPC, sentencing him to five years of rigorous imprisonment, but acquitted him of Section 307 (attempt to murder). The State appealed this acquittal.

1. Whether the act of pushing a person out of a moving train during a robbery, resulting in grievous injury, satisfies the requisite mens rea (intent or knowledge) to constitute an offense of attempt to murder under Section 307 of the IPC.

The Court applied Section 307 of the IPC, which requires the prosecution to prove that an act was committed with such intention or knowledge that, if death had resulted, it would amount to murder.

The Court relied on Hari Singh v. Sukhbir Singh (1988), which established that intention must be gathered from all circumstances, not just the consequences.

It further cited Sarju Prasad v. State of Bihar (1964) and Vasant Vithu Jadhav v. State of Maharashtra (2004), emphasizing that the focus must remain on the accused's state of mind (mens rea) irrespective of the result of the act.

The court noted that causing hurt during a robbery is specifically punishable under Sections 392 and 394 of the IPC.

The Court examined the testimony of PW-1 (the victim) to determine the Respondent's primary motive. It observed that the push was executed "essentially for the purpose of snatching the phone" and not with the specific intent to cause death or knowledge that death was a likely consequence in that specific context.

The Court reasoned that while the injury (amputation) was grievous, the prosecution failed to prove the requisite mens rea for murder. The evidence established that the Respondent's sole intention was to commit robbery.

The Court concluded that the Trial Court had correctly categorized the violence as incidental to the robbery, thereby falling under the ambit of Sections 392 and 394 IPC rather than Section 307 IPC.

The Court dismissed the State's appeal, affirming that the Respondent was rightly acquitted under Section 307 of the IPC as the intention to murder was not established beyond reasonable doubt. The convictions and sentences under Sections 392 and 394 of the IPC remain undisturbed.