S. 307 IPC | Gravity Of Injury Not Enough To Convict For Attempt To Murder Without Proof Of Intention To Cause Death: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court has observed that unless the mens rea to cause death is proved, the conviction for attempt to commit murder cannot be sustained merely on account of the gravity of the injury suffered by the injured.

“…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.”, observed a bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh, while setting aside the judgment of the Punjab & Haryana High Court which had affirmed the trial court's conviction of the appellant for the offence of attempt to murder under Section 307 IPC, finding out that the courts below had placed undue reliance upon the injury being dangerous to life, whilst entirely overlooking the critical fact that the appellant lacked the requisite intention or knowledge to commit murder.

The Court observed that, as per Section 307 IPC, to constitute an offence of attempt to murder, two essential elements must be established: (i) intention or knowledge to commit murder, and (ii) an actual act of trying to commit murder.

“The intention to commit murder cannot be presumed merely because the injuries were ultimately opined to be dangerous to life. In the absence of evidence showing prior motive, premeditation, repeated deliberate blows with deadly weapons, or any conduct indicative of a determined effort to cause death, this Court is unable to hold that the appellants possessed the intention or knowledge necessary to attract Section 307 IPC…”

“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. Once the requisite intention to commit murder is proved, the eventual outcome of the attempt becomes irrelevant, unless the attempt culminates in death, in which case the offence would fall within Section 300 IPC. In the absence of proof of intention, a conviction under this provision cannot be sustained.”, the court added.

The Court noted that the injury suffered by the injured, who was trying to intervene and stop an altercation between the appellant and a third party, would not alone render the appellant liable for the offence of attempt to commit murder, given the absence of prior motive and the necessary intent to cause death.

“There is no history of enmity known between the appellants and the injured. The prosecution has also failed to bring on record any material suggesting prior planning, preparation, or concerted intention on the part of the appellants to cause the death of Amar Singh (PW3). On the contrary, the evidence reveals that the incident occurred suddenly when the injured intervened in an altercation involving the driver of the jeep. 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 observed.

In essence, the judgment authored by Justice Kotiswar Singh observed that since the appellant lacked the requisite mens rea and any premeditation to cause injury, a conviction for an offence to attempt to commit murder could not be sustained.

In the aforesaid, the appeal was allowed, and the conviction was set aside; the Appellant was acquitted.

Cause Title: ROSHAN LAL VERSUS THE STATE OF HARYANA & ANR

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 537

Click here to download judgment

Appearance:

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Rudreshwar Singh, Sr. Adv. Mr. Rajiv Kapoor, Adv. Mr. Sumit Srivaastava, AOR Mr. Avinash Mishra, Adv. Mr. Rajesh Pathak, Adv. Mr. Nand Kishor Jha, Adv. Mr. Satyam Sinha, Adv. Ms. Vagisha Kashyap, Adv. Mrs. Kumari Supriya, Adv. Mr. Ashit Kapoor, Adv. Mr. Gautam Awasthi, AOR Mr. Ayush Choudhary, Adv. Mr. Devanshu Yadav, Adv. Mr. Sameer Pandey, Adv. Mr. Sahil Sharma, Adv. Mr. Parijat Mishra, Adv. Mr. V.N.Sinha, Sr. Adv. Mr. Rakesh Kumar Yadav, Adv. Mr. Puran Mal, Adv. Dr. Sukhdev Sharma, Adv. Mr. Rameshwar Prasad Goyal, AOR

For Respondent(s) :Mr. Samar Vijay Singh, AOR Mr. Rajesh Kumar Singh, A.A.G. Ms. Deepika Singh, Adv. Mr. Amit Pandey, Adv. Ms. Sabarni Som, Adv. Mr. Aman Dev Sharma, Adv. Mr. Gaj Singh, Adv. Ms. Soumyadeep Chatterjee, Adv. Mr. Sachin Kumar Anand, Adv. Mr. Milind Kumar, AOR Mr. Sumit Srivaastava, AOR