Click the Play button to listen to article

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that the mere fact that an injury is classified as simple is not, by itself, rule out offence of attempt to murder under Section 109 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (corresponding to Section 307 IPC).

Justice Neerja K. Kalson explained that the provision turns on the intention or knowledge behind the Act, not on whether hurt was caused or how serious it was:

“It follows that causing hurt is not an indispensable ingredient of the offence in its basic form, nor is it necessary that the injury, if caused, must invariably be grievous or life-threatening. What assumes significance is whether the act was committed with such intention or knowledge, and under such circumstances, that had death ensued, the offender would have been guilty of murder. Consequently, the mere classification of an injury as simple cannot, by itself, be regarded as conclusive of the applicability of Section 109 BNS.”

The Court noted that the words “if hurt is caused to any person by such act” appear only in the latter part of Section 109(1), which prescribes enhanced punishment where hurt actually results. “The legislature has thus drawn a distinction between the commission of an act accompanied by the requisite intention or knowledge and the actual infliction of hurt,” it said.

The Court relied on the Supreme Court's recent judgment in Surender Kumar v. State of Haryana (2026 INSC 1006). Wherein it was judgment reiterated that Section 307 IPC “contemplates two limbs concerning punishment but only one concerning culpability”, and that infliction of hurt, simple or grievous, is not a prerequisite.

The two petitioners sought anticipatory bail in an FIR registered on September 14, 2026. The FIR was registered under Sections 115(2), 126(2), 109, 351, 191(3) and 190 of the BNS.

According to the prosecution, Harmohan Kumar @ Harmohan Gir allegedly struck the complainant on the left side of his head with an iron rod. The complainant received eight stitches for the wound.

Harjesh Kumar @ Harjesh Gir allegedly raised a lalkara and aimed an iron-rod blow at the complainant's head. The blow struck the complainant's left hand as he tried to ward it off. Harjesh Kumar is also alleged to have struck another injured person near the left eye.

The petitioners argued that they had been falsely implicated because of a longstanding civil dispute over land in Village Shiampur.

The injuries attributed to them were simple, so Section 109 BNS was not attracted.

They had clean antecedents and were willing to join the investigation.

The State, supported by the complainant's counsel, submitted that the petitioners had been named with specific roles, and that one of the complainant's injuries had been declared grievous. It added that the iron rods were yet to be recovered and that custodial interrogation was necessary.

The Court examined the medico-legal reports and the subsequent medical opinions and noted that he sustained five injuries from a blunt weapon. One of them, at the base of his left thumb, was declared grievous. The other four, including a lacerated wound measuring 2.5 × 0.5 cm on the left parietotemporal region of the head, were declared simple.

Second injured person: He sustained a lacerated wound near his left eyebrow, which was also simple.

The Court held that “the contention that all the injuries sustained during the occurrence were simple in nature does not find support from the medical material placed on record.”

The Court observed that the grievous thumb injury “assumes relevance in the context of the allegation concerning the blow sustained while warding off the assault, although its attribution to a particular accused would remain subject to proof.” It added:

“The nature of the weapons allegedly used, the parts of the body targeted and the manner in which the assault is stated to have been carried out are circumstances which cannot be disregarded merely because the injuries on the heads of both injured persons have been medically classified as simple.”

The Court clarified that whether the intention or knowledge required by Section 109 BNS is ultimately established will be decided on the evidence.

Civil Dispute And Custodial Interrogation

The Court rejected the plea of false implication arising from the land dispute. It held, “The mere existence of a civil dispute or previous hostility cannot, at this stage, be treated as sufficient to conclude that the criminal allegations are false, particularly when the occurrence is stated to be supported by medical evidence.”

On the State's need for custodial interrogation, the Court observed that this “cannot be considered in isolation from the nature of the accusation and the specific acts attributed to the accused”.

Both petitioners were alleged to have used iron rods, with blows directed at vital parts of the body. The Court held that the requirement to recover the weapons “cannot be brushed aside merely on the petitioners' willingness to join the investigation.”

Considering the individual roles, the medical evidence and the stage of the investigation, the Court dismissed both petitions. It clarified that its observations are confined to the anticipatory bail pleas.

Appearances: Mr. Munish Gupta, Advocate for the petitioners;

Mr. Gorav Kathuria, DAG, Punjab;

Mr. Faryad S. Virk, Advocate for the complainant.

Tags: