Presence Of Injury Not Essential To Attract Offence Of Attempt To Murder: MP High Court

The Madhya Pradesh High Court, on Tuesday (November 11), held that the presence of injury is not an essential ingredient for making out an offence of attempt to murder under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code/ Section 109(1) of BNS.The court further clarified that any action is done with an intention or knowledge that this action would cause death, then the assailant would be guilty of attempt to murder.The bench of Justice Gajendra Singh observed; "it is clear that presence of injury is not sine qua non for making out an offence under Section 307 of IPC. If any act is done with an intention or knowledge that, if assailant by that act causes death, then the assailant would be guilty of murder, then such act would certainly be punishable under Section 307 of IPC. Thus, the nature of injuries is not a decisive factor to determine as to whether the act of the assailant would be an act punishable under Section 307 of IPC or not". The case concerned victim Rahul who sustained knife injuries during the assault allegedly committed by the petitioner. The trial court had framed charges for obscene acts and songs (Section 296), attempt to murder (Section 109(1)), voluntarily causing grievous hurt (Section 115(2)) and misappropriation of property possessed by a deceased person at the time of its death (Section 315(3)) of the BNS, 2023. However, the petitioner only challenged the charges under Sections 109 (1) and 351(3), arguing that the medical report did not indicate any life-threatening injuries. The counsel for the petitioner contended that the trial court erred in framing charges to attempt to murder, as the injuries were not deep, fatal or on any vital body parts. Citing the doctor's report, the counsel argued that the wounds were sharp incised but not dangerous to life and therefore, no offence under Section 109(1) was made out. It was further submitted that the FIR was registered under the influence of the complainant without a proper medical assessment, amounting to the misuse of the process of law. Opposing the revision, the Government Advocate for the state maintained that sufficient material existed to proceed against the accused. It was argued that the injuries, though not immediately fatal, reflected the accused's intent and knowledge necessary for an attempt to murder charge. The bench examined the provisions governing the discharge and framing of charges under BNSS. The court reiterated that at the time of framing of the charges, the probative value of the material on record cannot be gone into, but before framing a charge, the court must apply its judicial mind to the material placed on record and must be satisfied that the commission of the offence by the accused was possible.Clarifying the scope of Section 307 of the IPC or Section 109(1) of BNS, the court observed that the presence or severity of injury is not a prerequisite for constituting an attempt to murder. What matters is the intention or knowledge of the assailant and whether the act was directed toward causing death. The bench noted that per the victim's statement, the accused had threatened to kill him and had attacked him with a knife, targeting his neck. Rahul had intercepted the blow with his arm, sustaining two deep incised wounds, with excessive bleeding and open cuts on veins and muscles. The court observed that the injuries indicated that the act was deliberate and carried the requisite mens rea for an attempt to murder. "Testing the framing of charges on the standard of "grave suspicion" and position of law that the nature of injuries is not a decisive factor to determine as to whether the act of the assailant would be an act punishable under Section 307 of IPC or not", the bench noted. The court therefore held that the impugned order of the trial court does not suffer from any illegality in framing charges and dismissed the revision.Case Title: Vivek v State [CRR-4878-2025] Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (MP) 244For Petitioner: Advocate Subodh ChoudharyFor State: Government Advocate Rajendra Singh SuryavanshiClick here to read/download the Order

Presence Of Injury Not Essential To Attract Offence Of Attempt To Murder: MP High Court

Jayanti Pahwa

Tags