CASE NAME	Om Prakash v. State of Punjab, 1961 SCC OnLine SC 72
CITATION	(1962) 2 SCR 254, (1962) 1 SCJ 189, AIR 1961 SC 1782, (1961) 2 Cri LJ 848
COURT	Supreme Court of India
BENCH	Hon’ble Justice Raghubar Dayal and Justice K. Subba Rao
PETITIONER	Om Prakash
RESPONDENT	State of Punjab
DECIDED ON	Decided on 24th April, 1961

INTRODUCTION

Amidst the tumultuous Reservation discussions and World Cup anticipation in May 2006, the Supreme Court’s ruling in the Om Prakash v. State of Uttar Pradesh case garnered a good amount of media attention. Was it fair, though? Were there truly revolutionary ideas established to safeguard the rights of defenseless victims of the horrific crime of rape? We thought so because of the hoopla in the media. However, a more thorough legal examination tells a different tale. Therefore, the goal of this article is to investigate whether the ruling actually established any new guidelines for evaluating supporting evidence in rape cases. A number of aspects of Sections 307, 511, and 308 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (henceforth referred to as the “IPC”) are explained and examined in this case. It was one of the earliest cases that accurately outlined the components of the attempted murder offense as defined by Section 307 of the IPC. It illuminates the brutal realities of domestic abuse in addition to offering insights into criminal law provisions.

According to a well-established principle, Section 307, which deals with attempted murder, requires both an act and purpose. This historic ruling, however, answers the question of whether this act must be the final one carried out prior to the offense. It is generally accepted that if a wife is reliant on her husband, the husband must supply her with basic needs such as clothing, food, and housing. This lawsuit also addressed the issue of whether the husband needs to spoon-feed the wife.

Furthermore, this case highlights the differences between Sections 511 and 307 of the IPC. Furthermore, it was traditionally established that Section 307 penalized the beginning of an offense. Despite this, because the Om Prakash case featured a crime within the conventional family system, it also garnered public attention.

FACTS OF THE CASE

The appellant in this case, Om Prakash, married the victim, Bimla Devi, in October 1951. When Mrs. Devi and her husband’s relationship soured in 1953, Bimla Devi left her married home to live with her brother. She only spent a year living with her brother. She went back to her married home to live with the appellant after receiving assurances from the appellant’s maternal uncle that she would not face mistreatment going forward.

Regretfully, they did not follow through on their pledge to treat her with kindness. Her health reportedly declined as a result of malnutrition and III treatment. She was kept in the house and starved by force in 1956. Bimla Devi attempted to flee in April 1956 but was apprehended and taken back by the appellant’s brothers, Romesh and Suresh Chander, who then brutally assaulted her. However, the victim escaped and made it to the City Hospital in Ludhiana on June 5, 1956, when her chamber was inadvertently opened when her husband and mother-in-law were out of the house. The victim met Dr. Mrs. Kumar in the municipal hospital, and she told her about all of her pains.

When the appellant and his mother arrived at the hospital, they attempted to bring the victim back, but the doctor refused to allow her to leave. Therefore, their attempts were unsuccessful. Bimla Devi attempted to flee in April 1956 but was apprehended and taken back by the appellant’s brothers, Romesh and Suresh Chander, who then brutally assaulted her. However, the victim escaped and made it to the City Hospital in Ludhiana on June 5, 1956, when her chamber was inadvertently opened when her husband and mother-in-law were out of the house. The victim met Dr. Mrs. Kumar in the municipal hospital, and she told her about all of her pains. When the appellant and his mother arrived at the hospital, they attempted to bring the victim back, but the doctor refused to allow her to leave. Therefore, their attempts were unsuccessful. 

ISSUES RAISED

Whether the offense was committed under Section 307 of IPC?

ARGUMENTS FROM BOTH SIDES

Argument on behalf of the appellant

• The appellant’s attorney argued that the law only requires that someone be taken care of and fed properly when they are incapable of taking care of themselves or are in a hopeless situation. The victim was not one of the lunatics, infants, or elderly people who are usually incapable of taking care of themselves, the attorney contended. 
• Additionally, the attorney contended that a husband’s obligation is restricted to providing sufficient financial resources to guarantee the wife’s access to food rather than physically feeding her.
• Additionally, the appellants argued that Section 307 and Section 511 of the IPC had different essences. It need not be the final act; it might be the first one under Section 511, which deals with the penalty for attempting to commit an offense. However, an act must be the last act and have the potential to cause death in order to be penalized under Section 307, which addresses attempts at murder. The appellants in this case argued that, in accordance with Section 307, the victim’s starvation could not have constituted the final act leading to murder. They contended that in order for there to have been a clear attempt at murder, the hunger period would have required to be longer.

Argument on behalf of the respondent

• If the appellant’s interpretation of s. 307 is to be followed, then s. 308 should as well. While s. 307 may be considered comprehensive or cover all murder attempt cases and s. 511 does not apply to any murder attempt case because it only applies to offenses punishable by life in prison or imprisonment, the same cannot be said for the offense of attempt to commit culpable homicide, which is punishable under s. 308. A specific amount of time in prison is the penalty for attempting to commit culpable homicide.

JUDGMENT

According to the Court, a person violates Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code when he intends to commit murder and, in pursuit of that intention, takes action to carry it out, regardless of whether or not that action is the penultimate act. The Court upheld the conviction of the appellant under Section 307 of IPC.

CONCLUSION

One of the earliest cases that established the components of Section 307 was Om Prakash v. State of Punjab. It is clear from this case that Section 307 merely calls for the conduct of an act in order to commit the offense and the purpose to commit the offense or the knowledge that the act could end in death. By establishing that the act’s character, intervention during its commission, and consequences, such as its potential to cause death, need not be taken into account under Section 307, this ruling also serves to allay concerns about that provision. 

Whether starvation, especially during an intervention period, may be covered by Section 307 of the IPC was hotly contested in the case. In this case, the court recognized that starvation is a legitimate means of homicide. The ruling made it clear that Section 307 conduct does not have to be the final action taken prior to the offense. Additionally, it accurately established that Section 307 would punish any conduct carried out during the course of attempting to commit murder, regardless of the time or skill involved. The definition of “an act” under Section 307 IPC was suitably expanded by this case by establishing these grounds.

The brutality the appellant imposed on the victim is another significant factor in this instance. The domination of one partner over the other and the infliction of physical or psychological suffering are considered forms of domestic cruelty. The pinnacle of marital cruelty is shown by this horrifying incident, in which the husband starved the woman to death. Traditional ideas of a family, such as love, caring, and understanding, have been upended by this instance. Even behaviorists would be troubled by the questions of why the husband committed this crime and why the family allowed it to happen. Thus, as the court rightly noted, this case also has a significant social consequence.

In this instance, the court provided a historical explanation of the components of Section 307. The distinctions between Sections 307, 308, and 511 of the IPC are also explained in this case, along with the various situations in which these sections may be used. The legal provisional analysis and interpretation of pertinent cases are not the only insightful aspects of this case. The accused’s actions, notably Om Prakash’s, had a profound impact on society and destroyed core social norms. Despite this, the Om Prakash case is a landmark case that will be remembered mostly for establishing that an act and an intention are necessary for an attempt to commit murder and that the act may signal the start or finish of an attempt to commit the crime.