Trial Court Can Alter Charge From Section 307 IPC To Section 308 IPC Or Another Appropriate Lesser Offence If Evidence Falls Short: Supreme Court

The Apex Court consequently set aside the Rajasthan High Court’s threshold substitution of the Section 307 IPC charge and restored the trial court’s order.

The Court was hearing an appeal challenging the High Court’s decision partly allowing the accused persons’ criminal revision petition and directing the trial court to substitute the Section 307 IPC charge on the ground that the injuries had been inflicted on non-vital parts of the victims’ bodies.

A Bench of Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice Vipul M. Pancholi observed: “At this stage, it is also required to be observed that the High Court overlooked the statutory safeguards provided under Section 216 of the Cr.P.C., which vests power in any court to alter or add to any charge at any time before judgment is pronounced.”

The Bench added: “Thus, if during the course of the trial, based on the evidence adduced, it emerges that the ingredients of Section 307 of the IPC are not established, the trial court is empowered under Section 216 of the Cr.P.C. to alter or amend the charge accordingly to Section 308 of the IPC or any other appropriate lesser offence. Therefore, the interference of the High Court at the threshold stage was unwarranted and cannot be sustained in law.”

Advocates Sanchar Anand and Nishant Bishnoi appeared for the appellant. Advocate S. Udaya Kumar Sagar appeared for the State of Rajasthan.

Background

The prosecution case arose from an incident in an agricultural field where one of the accused allegedly drove a tractor at high speed towards the appellant and his family members, striking the appellant’s mother. The accused persons were also alleged to have assaulted the appellant and his family with sharp-edged agricultural weapons.

The appellant and his father sustained deep incised injuries extending to the bone and muscle. Following the investigation, the accused were charge-sheeted for offences including Sections 307, 326, 324, 323 and 447 read with Section 34 IPC.

The Additional Sessions Judge framed a charge under Section 307 IPC against the accused alleged to have driven the tractor, along with other charges. The remaining accused were charged with the other alleged offences.

In revision, the High Court quashed the Section 307 IPC charge. It found that the injuries suffered by the appellant and his father were on their arms and wrists, while the appellant’s mother had sustained an abrasion. On that basis, the High Court concluded that the case could, at most, attract Section 308 IPC.

The appellant argued before the Supreme Court that the High Court had considered only the location and gravity of the injuries while overlooking the alleged use of a tractor and axes, the manner of the attack and the previous animosity between the parties.

The State supported the appeal and submitted that the investigating material disclosed a prima facie case under Section 307 IPC. It argued that the appellant and his father had sustained injuries on their arms while attempting to shield their heads from the alleged axe blows.

Court’s Observations

Section 307 IPC Turns On Intention And Knowledge

The Court held that the applicability of Section 307 IPC does not depend upon the victim actually sustaining a fatal or life-threatening injury. It observed that the relevant inquiry is whether the act was committed with such intention or knowledge and in such circumstances that, had death resulted, the accused would have been guilty of murder.

The Court referred to State of Maharashtra v. Balram Bama Patil (1983), State of Madhya Pradesh v. Saleem alias Chamaru (2005) and Jage Ram v. State of Haryana (2015). It held that the nature, gravity and location of an injury may assist in determining intention, but cannot be treated as conclusive.

The Court observed: “To attract Section 307 of the IPC, the Court must ascertain whether the act, irrespective of the ultimate outcome, was committed with such intention or knowledge and under such circumstances that, if death had been caused, the offender would have been guilty of murder.”

The Court added that intention or knowledge must be inferred from the entire factual setting, including the weapon used, persistence of the assault, prior animosity and the manner in which the attack was allegedly carried out.

While discussing Jage Ram v. State of Haryana (2015), the Court referred to State of Madhya Pradesh v. Kashiram (2009), which had reiterated that an accused cannot be absolved of a Section 307 IPC charge merely because the injuries were simple or minor. The cited line of precedent also referred to Girija Shankar v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2004) and R. Prakash v. State of Karnataka (2004).

The Court further relied on Surender Kumar v. State of Haryana (2026) and observed: “The determining factor under Section 307 of the IPC is the requisite intention or knowledge coupled with an overt act and that the mere fact that the injury was caused on a non-vital part of the body would not, by itself, exclude the applicability of Section 307 of the IPC.”

Charge-Framing Stage Does Not Permit A Mini-Trial

The Court held that while framing charges under Sections 227 and 228 CrPC, a court is not required to weigh the evidence as though it were finally deciding the accused’s guilt.

The Court stated: “We are of the view that at the stage of framing charges under Sections 227 and 228 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for brevity ‘Cr.P.C.’), the Court is not required to hold a mini-trial or weigh the evidentiary material as if adjudicating guilt after a full-fledged trial.”

The Court added that the inquiry at this stage is confined to whether the investigating material, witness statements and accompanying records disclose a prima facie case and raise suspicion against the accused.

Investigating Material Supported Trial Under Section 307 IPC

The Court noted that the investigating material alleged that the accused drove a tractor at high speed into the agricultural field, repeatedly steered it towards the appellant’s family and struck the appellant’s mother.

The Court further noted that the accused persons were alleged to have subsequently attacked the appellant and his father with sharp-edged weapons. Their medico-legal certificates disclosed deep incised injuries, while the charge sheet stated that the blows were directed towards their heads and struck their arms when they attempted to protect themselves.

In view of these allegations, the Court held that the High Court had erred by making a summary and technical assessment based principally on the location of the injuries. The Court observed:

“The High Court committed an error in conducting a summary and technical assessment of the injuries and concluding that the offence under Section 307 of the IPC is not made out and the case could not travel beyond Section 308 of the IPC on the reasoning that the wounds were located on the limbs being the non-vital part of the body.”

The Court held that the Additional Sessions Judge had examined the material placed on record before framing the Section 307 IPC charge and that the High Court’s interference at that stage was not justified.

Section 216 CrPC Provided Safeguard During Trial

The Court held that the High Court had overlooked the trial court’s statutory power under Section 216 CrPC to alter or add to a charge at any time before judgment.

It observed that if the evidence ultimately failed to establish the ingredients of Section 307 IPC, the trial court could alter the charge to Section 308 IPC or another appropriate lesser offence. The Court consequently found no justification for replacing the charge before the evidence was tested at trial.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the Rajasthan High Court’s judgment and restored the Additional Sessions Judge’s order framing a charge under Section 307 IPC against the accused concerned.

The Court clarified that its observations were confined to deciding the appeal and would not influence the merits or outcome of the trial. It directed the trial court to proceed in accordance with law.

Cause Title: Abhishek v. State of Rajasthan and Others (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 1093)

Appearances

Appellant: Advocates Sanchar Anand, Nishant Bishnoi, Srishti Prabhakar, Raghav Khanna, Dhananjay Mishra, Siddharth Bishnoi and Aashish Bishnoi

Respondent-State: Advocate-on-Record S. Udaya Kumar Sagar

Click here to read/download Judgment