The Madhya Pradesh High Court has ruled that causing injury is not a necessary requirement to establish an offence under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), which deals with “attempt to murder.” The Court clarified that the essence of the offence lies in the intention or knowledge of the accused to cause death, not in the extent or location of the injury inflicted.
The case arose when an accused challenged the trial court’s decision to frame charges under Section 307 IPC. The accused argued that the medical report did not indicate any life-threatening injuries or wounds on vital parts of the victim’s body, and hence, the offence of attempt to murder could not be made out. The defence contended that the injuries were simple in nature and that the act could, at most, attract a lesser offence such as causing hurt.
Justice Gajendra Singh, presiding over the matter, rejected this argument and emphasized that the absence of a serious injury does not automatically absolve an accused of liability under Section 307 IPC. The Court noted that the determining factor is the mens rea — the mental state or intention behind the act — rather than the actual result of the attack.
The Court observed that even if no injury occurs, or the injury is minor, the offence of attempt to murder can still be established if it is shown that the accused performed an act with the knowledge or intention that it was likely to cause death. The act itself, combined with the circumstances in which it was carried out, can reveal the accused’s intent.
In the present case, the Court found that the accused had attacked the victim with a knife, causing deep cuts on the arm when the victim raised it in self-defence. Although the injuries were not on vital parts, the use of a dangerous weapon and the nature of the assault indicated a clear intent to cause death. Thus, the charge under Section 307 IPC was justified.
The Court further stated that, at the stage of framing charges, it is sufficient if the evidence establishes a prima facie case of attempt to murder. The depth of injury or its location should not be the sole criterion for determining intent at this preliminary stage.
By dismissing the revision petition, the Madhya Pradesh High Court reaffirmed a well-established legal principle — that under Section 307 IPC, the focus should be on the intention and action of the accused, not merely the physical injury inflicted. The ruling reinforces that attempt to murder is an offence of intent, not consequence.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.