The Supreme Court of India has held that to constitute an offence of attempt to murder under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), it is not essential that a fatal or life-threatening bodily injury must actually be inflicted, nor does the infliction of an injury on a non-vital part of the body exclude the applicability of the provision. Setting aside an order of the Rajasthan High Court that had downgraded a charge from Section 307 to Section 308 of the IPC (attempt to commit culpable homicide) on the ground that the injuries were on non-vital body parts, a Bench comprising Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice Vipul M. Pancholi restored the charge of attempt to murder framed by the trial court against the accused.
Background of the Case
The case stems from an incident that took place on November 26, 2020, in an agricultural field located in Village Polas, Tehsil Degana, District Nagaur, Rajasthan. The appellant, Abhishek, was engaged in pruning Khejri (Persian Mesquite) trees when respondent No. 2, accompanied by other family members (respondent Nos. 3 and 4), entered the field driving a tractor at high speed. The vehicle was repeatedly steered towards the appellant and his family in an attempt to run them over, striking the appellant’s mother, Indra Devi, on her waist and causing her to fall.
Thereafter, respondent No. 2 and the co-accused assaulted the family with sharp-edged agricultural weapons (kashi/axes). The assault left the appellant with a bone-deep incised wound measuring 7 cm × 3 cm on the lateral aspect of his left arm. His father, Dilip Kumar, suffered two incised injuries: a bone-deep wound measuring 7 cm × 3 cm on the dorsal aspect of his right wrist and a muscle-deep wound measuring 6 cm × 3 cm on his forearm. The appellant’s mother sustained an abrasion measuring 2 cm × 1 cm.
An FIR (No. 119 of 2020) was lodged on November 27, 2020, at Police Station Merta Road under Sections 143, 307, 323, 341, and 447 of the IPC. Following the investigation, Charge-sheet No. 36 was submitted, and the case was committed to the Court of Additional District and Sessions Judge, Merta. On November 28, 2023, the Sessions Judge framed charges against respondent No. 2 under Sections 447, 323, 324, and 326 read with Section 34 and Section 307 of the IPC, while charges under Sections 447, 323, 324, and 326 read with Section 34 were framed against the remaining accused.
Respondent Nos. 2 to 4 challenged this order before the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jodhpur. On April 1, 2025, the High Court partly allowed their revision petition, concluding that since the injuries on the appellant and his father were on non-vital parts (wrist and arm) and the mother suffered abrasions, “offence under Section 307 IPC is not made out against the petitioner No. 1. At the most, the case may not travel beyond the offence under Section 308 IPC”. The High Court directed the trial court to frame a charge under Section 308 of the IPC instead, prompting the appellant to approach the Supreme Court.
Arguments Before the Apex Court
Learned counsel for the appellant, Nishant Bishnoi, submitted that the High Court committed a grave legal error by altering the charge. He argued that under settled law, Section 307 of the IPC does not require the actual infliction of an injury capable of causing death; rather, intention and knowledge must be determined from the totality of circumstances, including the weapons used, prior animosity, and the execution of the assault.
The appellant’s counsel emphasized that the respondents arrived armed with axes and a tractor, both inherently capable of causing death. He highlighted that the bone-deep injuries on the arms and wrists occurred while the victims were actively defending themselves against axe blows targeted directly at their heads. Relying on State of Madhya Pradesh v. Saleem alias Chamaru and Jage Ram v. State of Haryana, counsel stressed that at the stage of framing charges, courts are only required to see if a prima facie case exists and cannot conduct a mini-trial.
Appearing for the State of Rajasthan, learned counsel S. Udaya Kumar Sagar supported the appellant, relying on State of Maharashtra v. Balram Bama Patil to submit that the decisive criterion under Section 307 of the IPC is the requisite intent or knowledge, regardless of the medical result. He pointed out the recoveries of sharp-edged weapons made under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, the intentional use of a tractor as a lethal instrument, and the past criminal antecedents of respondent No. 2.
None appeared on behalf of the accused respondents (Nos. 2 to 4) despite the completion of service of notice.
Court’s Analysis and Legal Precedents
Examining the statutory scope of Section 307 of the IPC, Justice Vipul M. Pancholi noted that the legal position is well-settled. To attract the provision, the court must determine whether the act 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.
Citing the decisions in State of Maharashtra v. Balram Bama Patil, State of Madhya Pradesh v. Saleem alias Chamaru, and Jage Ram v. State of Haryana (which cited State of M.P. v. Kashiram), the Supreme Court reiterated:
“It is sufficient to justify a conviction under Section 307 if there is present an intent coupled with some overt act in execution thereof. It is not essential that bodily injury capable of causing death should have been inflicted. The section makes a distinction between the act of the accused and its result, if any. The court has to see whether the act, irrespective of its result, was done with the intention or knowledge and under circumstances mentioned in the section. Therefore, an accused charged under Section 307 IPC cannot be acquitted merely because the injuries inflicted on the victim were in the nature of a simple hurt.”
The Bench also quoted the observation from Jage Ram:
“The determinative question is the intention or knowledge, as the case may be, and not the nature of the injury.”
The Court also referred to its recent ruling in Surender Kumar v. State of Haryana, reiterating that the mere fact that an injury was caused on a non-vital part of the body does not, by itself, exclude Section 307 of the IPC.
The Bench observed that at the stage of framing charges under Sections 227 and 228 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.), courts are not required to conduct a mini-trial or weigh evidence as if deciding final guilt, but must only examine if the record discloses a prima facie case and raises suspicion against the accused.
Applying these principles to the facts, the Bench noted that respondent No. 2 aggressively drove a heavy tractor into the field, struck the appellant’s mother, and along with co-accused launched an armed assault using sharp-edged axes. The medical reports recorded bone-deep and muscle-deep wounds, and the charge sheet recorded that the accused attacked the victims’ heads with axes, with the injuries landing on the arms and wrists as the victims raised their limbs in self-defense.
The Court held that the High Court erred in conducting a summary and technical assessment of the injuries to conclude that Section 307 of the IPC was not made out simply because the wounds were on the limbs. The Bench further noted that the High Court overlooked Section 216 of the Cr.P.C., which empowers trial courts to alter or add to any charge before judgment is pronounced if trial evidence fails to establish an offence under Section 307 of the IPC. Consequently, the High Court’s interference at the threshold stage was deemed unwarranted.
The Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the Rajasthan High Court’s order dated April 1, 2025, and restored the order dated November 28, 2023, passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge at Merta framing charges under Section 307 of the IPC against respondent No. 2.
The Bench clarified that its observations were confined strictly to the disposal of the appeal and would not influence the trial on its merits, directing the trial court to proceed in accordance with law.
Case Title: Abhishek v. State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Case No.: Criminal Appeal No. 4767 of 2026
Bench: Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice Vipul M. Pancholi
Date: October 07, 2026
