Kerala HC: Manner Of Attack & Injury Relevant To Ascertain If Accused Intentionally Attempted To Commit Murder U/S 307 of IPC

It is the well settled law that, in order to attract the offence under Section 307 of IPC, there must be an intentional attempt to commit murder. In the instant case, going through the manner in which the incident occurred and the attack at the instance of the 1st accused, either intention or knowledge to cause death of PW1 could not be found and the 1st accused only caused one injury that also on the shoulder of PW1, as borne from the wound certificate. Therefore, on no stretch of imagination, it is safe to conclude that the 1st accused committed the offence punishable under Section 307 of IPC. {Para 13}

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Crl. A. No. 972 of 2014

Decided On: 05.03.2026

Moosantepurakkal Manaf Vs. State of Kerala

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

A. Badharudeen, J.

Citation: MANU/KE/0922/2026,2026:KER:20486

Print Page

Not Every Fracture Is ‘Attempt to Murder’: Supreme Court’s Practical Blueprint for Applying Section 307 IPC

ROSHAN LAL Vs THE STATE OF HARYANA & ANR  2026 INSC 524,Dated: May 22, 2026

I. Why this judgment matters for Sessions Judges

In day‑to‑day Sessions trials, Section 307 IPC is frequently invoked wherever there is a head injury, use of a stick or sharp weapon, or an opinion that the injury was “dangerous to life”. Yet appellate courts regularly reduce such convictions to grievous hurt because the mental element of murder is not properly analysed in the judgment.

In this recent decision ROSHAN LAL Vs THE STATE OF HARYANA & ANR  2026 INSC 524,Dated: May 22, 2026, the Supreme Court has carefully revisited Section 307 IPC and, while ultimately converting the conviction to Section 325 IPC, has laid down a clear, workable framework for identifying the essential ingredients of “attempt to murder”. 

Print Page

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

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.

32. Intention, however, can be inferred from surrounding

circumstances, such as the type of weapon employed, the words

spoken by the accused at the time of the incident, the motive behind the act, the parts of the body targeted, the nature and extent of the injuries inflicted, as well as the force and manner in which the blows were delivered.

33. Tested on the anvil of the aforesaid legal principles, the factual matrix of the present case may now be considered. 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.

34. The circumstances, viewed holistically, suggest that the

object of the appellants was primarily to deter or intimidate the

complainant from interfering in the ongoing altercation. It is also

significant that the weapons allegedly used by the appellants were ordinary lathis, which, though capable of causing grievous hurt depending upon the manner of use, cannot in the facts of the

present case be regarded as inherently deadly weapons. There is

nothing on record to indicate that the appellants persisted in the

assault with such brutality or ferocity so as to unmistakably

disclose an intention to cause death.

35. Undoubtedly, the injuries sustained by Amar Singh (PW3) were grievous in nature, and the medical evidence demonstrates that the injury to the head subsequently led to serious complications. However, 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. 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 in the light of Bipin Bihari (supra).

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 2207 OF 2011

ROSHAN LAL Vs THE STATE OF HARYANA & ANR 

Author: NONGMEIKAPAM KOTISWAR SINGH, J.

Citation:  2026 INSC 524

Dated: May 22, 2026.

Print Page

Important Supreme court and high courts judgment on bail {Part 4}

 

1) Supreme Court: Courts Must Exercise Caution in Granting Bail in Rape, Murder Cases Once Trial Begins

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

EXTRAORDINARY APPELLATE JURISDICTION

SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRIMINAL) NO. 13378 OF 2024

X Vs  STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ANR. 

Dated: 27th November, 2024

Citation: 2024 INSC 909.

https://www.lawweb.in/2025/11/supreme-court-courts-must-exercise.html

Print Page

BAIL IN MURDER AND ATTEMPTED MURDER: A COMPREHENSIVE JUDICIAL GUIDE TO SECTION 302 AND 307 IPC BAIL APPLICATIONS

“Liberty vs. Liability: When Must Courts Release the Accused on Bail in Serious Crimes?”

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.          Introduction and Legal Framework

2.          Foundational Principles

3.          Pre-Chargesheet Bail (Anticipatory Bail)

4.          Post-Chargesheet Bail (Regular Bail)

5.          Critical Parameters for Judicial Decision-Making

6.          Unlawful Assembly Cases: Special Considerations

7.          Circumstantial Evidence and Bail Jurisprudence

8.          Recent Supreme Court Landmark Judgments on Bail

9.          Practical Framework for Session Judges

10.      Case Studies with Judicial Analysis

1. INTRODUCTION AND LEGAL FRAMEWORK

The right to bail stands as a fundamental safeguard of individual liberty under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. The Supreme Court and High Courts have consistently held that this right is not limited to bailable offences but extends to serious offences such as murder (Section 302 IPC) and attempted murder (Section 307 IPC), subject to rigorous examination of case-specific circumstances.

Print Page

How to ascertain that accused had intended to commit an offence of murder?

 It is not the case of the accused that the offence occurred out of a sudden quarrel. It also does not appear that the blow was stuck in the heat of the moment. On the contrary, considering the depositions of PW7 and PW8 the accused persons pushed and took the husband of PW7 out of the house and thereafter the accused caused the injuries on PW7 and PW8 and stabbed dagger. Thus, deadly weapons have been used and the injuries are found to be grievous in nature. As the deadly weapon has been used causing the injury near the chest and stomach which can be said to be on vital part of the body, the appellants have been rightly convicted for the offence under Section 307 read with Section 34 of the IPC. As observed and held by this Court in catena of decisions nobody can enter into the mind of the accused and his intention has to be ascertained from the weapon used, part of the body chosen for assault and the nature of the injury caused. Considering the case on hand on the aforesaid principles, when the deadly weapon – dagger has been used, there was a stab injury on the stomach and near the chest which can be said to be on the vital part of the body and the nature of injuries caused, it is rightly held that the appellants have committed the offence under Section 307 IPC. {Para 4.1 }

Supreme Court

JUSTICE M. R. Shah JUSTICE A.S. BOPANNA

Sadakat Kotwar and Anr. Vs. The State of Jharkhand

CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1316 of 2021

12th November 2021

Author: M. R. Shah, J.

Citation: 2021 ALL SCR (ONLINE) 645

Print Page

Whether accused can be convicted U/S 307 of IPC in absence of foundational facts?

Coming to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Hari Mohan Mandal (supra), the Court finds that the same has no application in the present case. There cannot be any issue with regard to the principle held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that merely because the injuries were simple in nature, conviction under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 would not be justified, as it has to be seen that the injury inflicted has been with the avowed object or intention to cause death. In the case before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the person so convicted had inflicted 3-4 knife blows on the abdomen of the injured. Further, the accused had inflicted knife blow on the head and eye of another person who had gone to save the first victim and another co-accused had assaulted by throwing bricks hitting the eye of injured person. In the present case, an abstract principle of law cannot be applied in vacuum as there has to be foundational facts to which law can be applied. Thus, in the present case, there being only a single blow which has been found to be simple in nature, on the back of the head, can in no way be construed to be indicative of a premeditated mind to inflict such blow knowing that the same would result in the death of the person.

In the High Court of Patna

(Before Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J.)

Md. Nazir v. State of Bihar 

Criminal Revision No. 401 of 2018

Decided on November 19, 2019

Dated:2019 SCC OnLine Pat 2010

Print Page

Whether accused can be given benefit of doubt in offence U/S 307 of IPC if there is single blow of blunt part of weapon?

 It is in view of all these circumstances, in my considered view
when only a single blow of blunt part of a weapon has been used in
inflicting injury, there is reasonable doubt as to if really accused
Vikram was intending or had knowledge to kill Kashinath. In exactly
similar fact situation in the case of Hari Singh (supra), the Supreme
Court had upheld acquittal of the accused under Section 307 of the
I.P.C. It is in this fact situation and the evidence, it is quite apparent
that the two Courts below have not appreciated the aforementioned
circumstances in their proper perspective and by overlooking them
have convicted accused Vikram for the offence punishable under
Section 307 of the I.P.C. Had they borne in mind these circumstances
and the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Hari Singh
(supra), they would not have reached the conclusion which they
have.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.145 OF 2004

Vikram Waman Bachake  Vs The State of Maharashtra


CORAM
: MANGESH S. PATIL,J.

PRONOUNCED ON : 04/06/2019.

Print Page

Whether a child, who has not committed heinous offence can be transferred to Children's Court?

 The legal issue is raised as follows :
Whether a child, who has not committed heinous offence can
be transferred to Children's Court?
 Under section 15 of the said Act, preliminary assessment in
respect of offence whether is heinous, is to be made by Juvenile Justice
Board. The word “heinous offences” is defined under section 2 (33) of
the said Act, which states as follows :
“2 (33). “heinous offences” includes the offences for
which the minimum punishment under the Indian Penal
Code (45 of 1860) or any other law for the time being in
force is imprisonment for seven years or more” .
10. Section 2 (54) of the said Act defines “serious offences” includes
the offences for which the punishment under the Indian Penal Code (45
of 1860) or any other law for the time being in force, is imprisonment
between three to seven years.

11. Under section 307 of IPC, minimum punishment is not
prescribed, but punishment may extend to ten years and fine, and if
hurt is caused to any person, then punishment can be extended upto
life imprisonment.
12. Thus, due to the benchmark of minimum punishment of 7 years
or more, section 307 of IPC cannot fall within the ambit of heinous
offences.
 In the present case, all the petitioners though are between the
age group of 16 to 18 years, they have not committed heinous offences
and, therefore, their case is not covered under section 15 of the said Act
and no order can be passed under section 18 (3) of the said Act of
transferring the case to Children's Court. Hence, the order dated 19th
January, 2018 passed by Juvenile Justice Board of Sangli District and
also the order dated 13th July, 2018 passed by Juvenile Justice Board,
Sangli are quashed and set aside and the inquiry is to be conducted by
Juvenile Justice Board, Sangli under section 18 (3) of the said Act.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 4044 OF 2018

 Saurabh Jalinder Nangre, Vs State of Maharashtra,

CORAM: MRS.MRIDULA BHATKAR, J.
DATED: DECEMBER 10, 2018

Print Page

Whether accused can be held guilty for attempt to murder if he has not caused grievous hurt?

 The evidence establishes that the injuries were caused by a fire-arm. The multiplicity of wounds indicates that the respondent fired at the injured more than once. The fact that hurt has been caused by the respondent is sufficiently proven. The lack of forensic evidence to prove grievous or a life-threatening injury cannot be a basis to hold that Section 307 is inapplicable. This proposition of law has

been elucidated by a two-judge bench of this Court in Pasupuleti Siva Ramakrishna Rao v State of Andhra Pradesh  (2014) 5 SCC 369 :
“18. There is no merit in the contention that the statement of medical officer that there is no danger to life unless there is dislocation or rupture of the thyroid bone due to strangulation means that the accused did not intend, or have the knowledge, that their act would cause death. The circumstances of this case clearly attract the second part of this section since the act resulted in Injury 5 which is a ligature mark of 34 cm × 0.5 cm. It must be noted that Section 307 IPC provides for imprisonment for life if the act causes “hurt”. It does not require that the hurt should be grievous or of any particular degree. The intention to cause death is clearly attributable to the accused since the victim was strangulated after throwing a telephone wire around his neck and telling him that he should die. We also do not find any merit in the contention on behalf of the accused that there was no intention to cause death because the victim admitted that the accused were not armed with weapons. Very few persons would normally describe the Thums up bottle and a telephone wire used, as weapons. That the victim honestly admitted that the accused did not have any weapons cannot be held against him and in favour of the accused.” (Emphasis supplied)
17 In the present case, the nature of the injuries shows that there were eleven punctured wounds. The weapon of offence was a firearm. The circumstances of the case clearly indicate that there was an intention to murder. The presence of 11 punctured and bleeding wounds as well as the use of a fire arm leave no doubt that there was an intention to murder. Thus, the second part of Section 307 of the Penal Code is attracted in the present case. The judgement of the High Court overlooks material parts of the evidence and suffers from perversity.

REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1589 OF 2018

THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH Vs KANHA @OMPRAKASH 
Dated:February 04, 2019.

Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, J

Print Page

Whether accused can be held guilty for attempt to murder even if he was not armed with weapons?

There is no merit in the contention that the statement of Medical Officer that there is no danger to life unless there is dislocation or rupture of the thyroid bone due to strangulation means that the accused did not intend, or have the knowledge, that their act would cause death. The circumstances of this case clearly attract the second part of this Section since the act resulted in injury No. 5 which is a ligature mark of 34 cm x 0.5 cm. It must be noted that Section 307 Indian Penal Code provides for imprisonment for life if the act causes 'hurt'. It does not require that the hurt should be grievous or of any particular degree. The intention to cause death is clearly attributable to the accused since the victim was strangulated after throwing a telephone wire around his neck and telling him he should die. We also do not find any merit in the contention on behalf of the Appellant that there was no intention to cause death because the victim admitted that the accused were not armed with weapons. Very few persons would normally describe the Thums-up bottle and a telephone wire used as weapons. That the victim honestly admitted that the accused did not have any weapons cannot be held against him and in favour of the accused.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Criminal Appeal No. 466 of 2014 

Decided On: 20.02.2014

 Pasupuleti Siva Ramakrishna Rao Vs.  State of Andhra Pradesh 

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

H.L. Dattu and S.A. Bobde, JJ.

Citation:  (2014) 5 SCC 369.

Print Page