Seriousness Of Injury Alone Cannot Attract Attempt To Murder Charge Without Proof Of Intention To Kill: Supreme Court
The Court held that grievous injuries or injuries subsequently opined to be dangerous to life cannot by themselves justify a conviction under Section 307 IPC unless the prosecution establishes the requisite intention or knowledge to commit murder.
Justice Sanjay Karol, Justice N. Kotiswar Singh, Supreme Court
The Supreme Court has held that the gravity or seriousness of injuries by itself cannot attract an offence under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, unless the prosecution establishes the requisite intention or knowledge necessary to constitute an attempt to murder.
The Court was hearing criminal appeals challenging the judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court affirming the conviction of the appellants under Sections 307 and 506 of the IPC, read with Section 34 of the IPC, for assaulting the injured informant with lathis, causing head injuries which were subsequently declared dangerous to life.
The Court further observed: “The gravity of the injury by itself cannot be determinative of the offence under Section 307 IPC unless the prosecution is able to establish the requisite mens rea contemplated under the provision.”
Background
The prosecution's case was that the injured informant was performing night watchman duty in the village when he reached the place of occurrence and found several persons assaulting another individual. When he intervened and questioned them, the accused persons allegedly turned upon him and assaulted him with lathis.
According to the prosecution, one accused inflicted a lathi blow on the complainant’s head, another struck his hand, while another accused also delivered a lathi blow on his head. The injured raised an alarm and was rescued by another villager.
The injured was initially treated at General Hospital, Rewari and later shifted to Central Hospital, Northern Railway, New Delhi, after his condition deteriorated. Medical examination revealed fractures in both parietal bones near the midline, along with haemorrhagic contusions and neurological complications.
The Trial Court convicted three accused persons under Section 307 read with Section 34 IPC and Section 506 IPC and sentenced them to seven years’ rigorous imprisonment. The High Court affirmed the conviction.
Aggrieved thereby, the accused approached the Supreme Court.
Court’s Observation
The Supreme Court extensively examined the ingredients necessary to sustain a conviction under Section 307 IPC. Referring to State of Madhya Pradesh v. Saleem @ Chamaru (2005) and Bipin Bihari v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2006), the Court reiterated that the essential requirement for attempt to murder is the existence of intention or knowledge contemplated under Section 300 IPC.
The Court observed that Section 307 IPC requires proof of both mens rea and actus reus, namely, intention or knowledge to commit murder coupled with an overt act towards the commission of that offence.
The Bench observed: “The essential ingredient of the offence of attempt to murder is the intention to cause death. Such intention exists prior to the actual attempt and must be established independently of the act itself or the actus reus.”
The Court further held that while the nature of injuries is a relevant factor, it is not determinative by itself, and intention has to be gathered from surrounding circumstances such as motive, type of weapon used, manner of assault and conduct of the accused.
Applying the aforesaid principles to the facts of the case, the Supreme Court noted that there was no evidence of prior enmity between the parties or any pre-planned intention to kill the complainant.
The Court observed that the assault arose suddenly when the injured intervened in an ongoing altercation involving another person. The Bench held that the occurrence appeared to be a spontaneous reaction in the heat of the moment rather than a deliberate attempt to eliminate the victim.
The Court observed: “The assault, therefore, appears to have arisen in the heat of the moment and as a spontaneous reaction to such intervention, rather than pursuant to any pre-conceived intention to eliminate the complainant.”
The Court also noted that the weapons used were ordinary lathis and not inherently deadly weapons. Further, there was no material indicating repeated brutal blows or persistent assault suggestive of the intention to cause death.
Though the Court declined to sustain the conviction under Section 307 IPC, it found that the medical evidence conclusively established the commission of grievous hurt.
The Court referred to Section 320 IPC and observed that fractures in both parietal bones clearly fell within Clause Seventhly relating to fracture or dislocation of bone, and also attracted Clause Eighthly since the injuries endangered life and resulted in prolonged hospitalisation.
The Bench observed: “The evidence of the doctors establishes that the complainant suffered fractures in both parietal bones near the midline, accompanied by neurological complications and prolonged hospitalization.”
The Court therefore held that the ingredients necessary to constitute the offence under Section 325 IPC stood fully established.
The Supreme Court ultimately held that while the prosecution failed to establish intention to commit murder, the evidence unequivocally proved that the accused voluntarily caused grievous hurt to the complainant in furtherance of their common intention.
Accordingly, the conviction under Section 307 read with Section 34 IPC was altered to Section 325 read with Section 34 IPC.
While considering the sentence, the Court noted that the appellants had already undergone substantial periods of imprisonment during trial and pendency of appeals.
The Bench observed: “Under the facts and circumstances discussed above, we are of the view that the interest of justice will be served if the appellants are sentenced to the period already undergone by them and impose a fine of Rs. 50,000/- each on the appellants.”
The Court directed that the fine amount be paid to the injured informant, failing which the appellants would undergo an additional six months’ simple imprisonment.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court held that the prosecution failed to prove the essential ingredients necessary to sustain a conviction under Section 307 IPC, particularly the intention or knowledge to commit murder.
However, the Court held that the evidence clearly established voluntary causing of grievous hurt punishable under Section 325 IPC. Accordingly, the conviction was altered from Section 307 IPC to Section 325 IPC, and the sentence was reduced to the period already undergone with imposition of a fine.
Cause Title: Roshan Lal v. State of Haryana & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 524)
Appearances
Appellants: Advocates Rajiv Kapoor, Sumit Srivaastava, Vagisha Kashyap, Gautam Awasthi, Ayush Choudhary, Devanshu Yadav, Sameer Pandey, Chandni Sharma, Sahil Sharma, Rakesh Kumar Yadav and Rameshwar Prasad Goyal.
Respondents: Rajesh Kumar Singh, A.A.G., with Advocates Samar Vijay Singh, Deepika Singh, Amit Pandey, Sabarni Som, Aman Dev Sharma, Gaj Singh, Amit Ojha and Milind Kumar.