Absence Of Homicidal Intention Bars Invocation Of Section 307 IPC; Grievous Hurt By Blunt Object Insufficient By Itself: Rajasthan High Court
The High Court held that mere grievous injury caused by a blunt object, without material indicating intention or knowledge to cause death, is insufficient to attract the offence of attempt to murder under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
Justice Farjand Ali, Rajasthan High Court
The Rajasthan High Court has held that Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, cannot be invoked mechanically merely because grievous injuries have been sustained by the victim, in the absence of material indicating intention or knowledge to cause death.
The Court was hearing a criminal revision petition challenging an order framing charges, including a charge under Section 307 IPC, arising out of an alleged assault involving the use of a blunt object.
A Bench of Justice Farjand Ali, upon examining the evidence, observed: “Tested on the anvil of the aforesaid principles, this Court finds that the material placed on record, even if accepted in toto, does not prima facie disclose the existence of such intention or knowledge as is sine qua non for constituting an offence under Section 307 IPC. The allegations indicate the use of a blunt object (lathi), resulting in a lacerated wound, which has been opined by the medical jurist to be grievous in nature. However, there is no material to suggest that the blow was repeated with such ferocity or persistence, or that the assailants adopted a method or means which unmistakably points towards a deliberate design to extinguish life”.
Background
The petitioners assailed an order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge (Women Atrocities Cases), Bikaner, whereby charges under Sections 341, 323, 325, 307 and 354 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, were framed against them.
The prosecution's case arose from a written complaint alleging that, owing to long-standing property disputes and animosity between family members, the accused persons assaulted the complainant using a thick stick, resulting in a lacerated wound on the head, which was medically opined to be grievous in nature. Allegations of outraging modesty and wrongful restraint were also made.
Upon completion of the investigation, a charge sheet was filed, and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions, which framed charges under Section 307 IPC. Aggrieved thereby, the accused approached the High Court in revision.
Court’s Observation
The High Court undertook an extensive examination of the scope, ingredients, and jurisprudential contours of Section 307 IPC. It reiterated that the sine qua non for constituting an offence of attempt to murder is not the gravity of injury simpliciter, but the existence of intention or knowledge of a homicidal degree, such that had death occurred, the act would amount to murder under Section 300 IPC.
The Court noted that intention is a mental element incapable of direct proof and must be inferred from surrounding circumstances, including the nature of the weapon used, the number and location of injuries, the manner of assault, the degree of force applied, the conduct of the accused before, during and after the incident, and the existence of prior animosity.
The Court emphasised that the Indian Penal Code contains a carefully graded statutory scheme under Chapter XVI dealing with offences affecting the human body, ranging from “hurt” under Section 319 IPC to “grievous hurt” under Section 320 IPC, with distinct penal provisions calibrated to varying degrees of culpability. This legislative stratification, the Court observed, militates against casual escalation of offences into Section 307 IPC.
Applying these principles to the facts of the case, the Court observed that even if the prosecution material were accepted in toto, it did not prima facie disclose intention or knowledge sufficient to constitute an offence under Section 307 IPC. The allegations indicated the use of a blunt object (lathi) causing a grievous injury, but there was no material to suggest repeated blows, extraordinary ferocity, use of sharp-edged or deadly weapons, or adoption of a method unmistakably pointing towards a deliberate design to extinguish life.
The Court also took note of the surrounding factual backdrop, including the familial relationship between the parties and their long-standing disputes, holding that animosity by itself does not ipso facto establish intention to kill. The conduct of the accused, including the cessation of the assault upon the arrival of villagers, was found inconsistent with a homicidal design.
The medical evidence, according to the Court, did not indicate that the injury was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. The Court reiterated that suspicion, however grave, cannot substitute legal proof, even at the stage of framing of a charge.
In this backdrop, the Court held that the invocation of Section 307 IPC in the present case amounted to an over-extension of the prosecution case, unsupported by foundational facts necessary to attract the offence, and that permitting such prosecution would result in unwarranted prejudice and abuse of process.
Conclusion
Allowing the revision petition in part, the Rajasthan High Court set aside the impugned order framing charge under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, against the petitioners.
The Court, however, upheld the framing of charges under Sections 341, 323, 325 and 354 read with Section 34 IPC, holding that the material on record disclosed a prima facie case for those offences.
Consequently, the case was directed to be transferred to the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bikaner, for trial in accordance with law.
Cause Title: Radhakrishnan & Anr. v. State of Rajasthan & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2026:RJ-JD:2038)
Appearances
For the Petitioners: Sanjay Kumar Poonia, Advocate
Respondents: Dharmveer Choudhary, Advocate; N.S. Chandawat, Deputy Government Advocate
