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

Bail Under Section 302 IPC: The Decisive Role of Vital Part Injuries and Weapon Used

 When a court considers bail in murder cases under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC)—especially after the chargesheet has been filed—two factors often weigh heavily in the judicial mind: whether injuries were inflicted on vital parts of the body and the nature of the weapon used. These forensic and evidentiary aspects are not just medical details—they are crucial legal indicators of intent and gravity and can make or break a bail application.

In this article, we explore what these factors mean, how courts assess them, and why they are pivotal in bail decisions.

1. Understanding “Vital Parts Involvement”

Definition

Print Page

Bombay HC: Human Teeth Not 'Dangerous Weapon', Injury Caused By It Falls U/S 323 IPC And Not 324 IPC

 We would like to go by contents of First Information Report, statements of witnesses and other documents in order to consider as to whether the offence under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code has been made out or not. The other offences i.e. Sections 323, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code are non cognizable in nature and in that event First Information Report under Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure will not be maintainable. First Information Report and statements of witnesses, especially the injured, would also show that when informant had allegedly requested applicants not to transport bricks from the brick kiln till the decision of the case, she states that she was assaulted. She levels allegation against applicant No.1 that he took bite (i.e. by using his teeth as weapon) to the left forearm of her brother Laxman and she also states that applicant No.2 had taken bite of her right hand. That means, she has levelled allegation that applicant Nos.1 and 2 both have used teeth as weapon. As per the ingredients of Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code, the hurt should be by means of any instrument for shooting, stabbing or cutting, or any instrument which, used as a weapon of offence, is likely to cause death, or by means of fire or any heated substance, or by means of any poison or any corrosive substance, or by means of any explosive substance or by means of any substance which it is deleterious to the human body to inhale, to swallow, or to receive into the blood etc. As aforesaid, the medical certificates of informant and her brother show that there was simple hurt to both of them. Now, the weapon that is used is stated to be hard and blunt object. The teeth marks were not noted by the Medical Officer and he has given the description of injury as Contused Lacerated Wound. The dimensions given cannot match with the injury that might be caused by human teeth. The natural curve in case of bite is not noted. Therefore, it is hard to believe that injuries which were noted on the person of informant and her brother would have been caused by human teeth. Hon’ble Supreme Court in Shakeel Ahmed (supra) while considering the offence under Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code observed that teeth of human being cannot be considered as deadly weapon as per the description of deadly weapon enumerated under Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code. If we consider Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code, then as compared to Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code, there is only the difference of word ‘hurt’ and ‘grievous hurt’ in the respective sections and then the change in the sentence. Therefore, the observations in Shakeel Ahmed (supra) are applicable to the case under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code also. In Shakeel Ahmed (supra) injury was grievous as the phalanx of index finger was snipped off and, therefore, it was considered under Section 325 of the Indian Penal Code. If we apply the same rule, then the injury would come down to Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code, which is non cognizable in nature. Therefore, with this evidence, though there appears to be a cross case; yet, it would be an abuse of process of law to ask the applicants to face the trial, as the ingredients of offence under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code are not attracted for the aforesaid reasons.

{Para 6}

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.5049 OF 2024

 Tanaji Shivaji Solankar Vs  The State of Maharashtra

Citation: 2025:BHC-AUG:9907-DB

CORAM : SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI &

SANJAY A. DESHMUKH, JJ.

PRONOUNCED ON : 04th APRIL, 2025

ORDER : ( PER : SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI, J. )

Print Page

What is difference between deadly weapon and dangerous weapon?

 There are two big distinctions between the types of weapons that can be used in the commission of a crime and these distinctions affect the charges and subsequent sentencing.

When it comes to defining a deadly weapon, the court will need to determine if any item used during the commission of a crime had the ability to cause the death of a person or serious bodily injury. In some instances, a gun that is not loaded has been considered a deadly weapon.

When looking at a dangerous weapon, the court must make a determination if the item used was capable of causing serious bodily injury but not death to the victim. The use of a dangerous weapon during the commission of a crime is a serious offense but not nearly as serious as the use of a deadly weapon during the commission of a crime.

Print Page

Whether not working country-made pistol is a deadly weapon for S 398 of IPC?

 The next issue to be examined is whether the country made

pistol (katta) can be termed as a “deadly weapon” as contemplated under Section 398 of the IPC. At this stage, it would be relevant to refer to the language of Section 398 of the IPC. The said Section is set

out below:

“398. Attempt to commit robbery or dacoity when armed

with deadly weapon.—If, at the time of attempting to

commit robbery or dacoity, the offender is armed with any

deadly weapon, the imprisonment with which such

offender shall be punished shall not be less than seven

years.”

30. It is apparent from the plain language of Section 398 of the IPC that if an offender is armed with a deadly weapon at the time of robbery or dacoity, the same would constitute an offence under Section 398 of the IPC.

31. In the present case, the appellant was armed with a country

made pistol while attempting to commit robbery and therefore, he has been convicted under Section 393 read with Section 398 of the IPC on the assumption that the country made pistol is a ‘deadly weapon’.

32. Thus, the key question to be addressed is whether the country

made pistol (katta) can be termed as a “deadly weapon” even if it is in a state of disrepair and therefore, cannot be used as such without carrying out the necessary repairs. The term ‘deadly’ qualifies the term ‘weapon’. Thus, in order for any weapon to be termed as deadly, it should one which is capable of or likely to cause death if used in the manner in which it is intended to be used. In order for any object, instrument or thing to qualify as a weapon, it should be one, which is intended to be used as such. There may be a large number of instruments or objects, which can be used in a lethal manner, however, if they are not intended or meant to be used in that manner, they cannot be understood to be weapons for the purposes of Section 398 of the IPC. The natural import of the word ‘weapon’ is clearly an object,a device, an instrument or any other thing, that is, intended to be used as a weapon and is inherently one. The term ‘deadly’ specifies the lethal quality of the weapon. A deadly weapon is one, which is lethal and is likely to cause death when used in the manner in which it is intended. By its very nature, a deadly weapon is one, which is likely to result in a fatality.

33. It is necessary to bear in mind that the mere possession of a

deadly weapon while committing a robbery constitutes an offence punishable under Section 398 of the IPC. It is not necessary for the offender to have used the weapon or even threatened to use such a deadly weapon.

34. There are large number of instruments or objects, which if used in a particular manner, may result in a fatality. Even an innocuous writing instrument such as a pen, if used in a particular manner, may result in fatality. However, a pen is not a deadly weapon and merely carrying the said writing instrument, at the time of committing robbery or dacoity, would not constitute an offence punishable under Section 398 of the IPC. Thus, the necessary ingredients of a ‘deadly weapon’ are: first, that it should be a weapon and capable of being used as such; and second, that it must be inherently lethal and if used in the intended manner is likely to result in death.

35. Viewed in the aforesaid perspective, a firearm, that is, incapable of being used as a weapon, cannot be construed to be a deadly weapon for the purposes of Section 398 of the IPC. Thus, even though the country made pistol recovered from the appellant constitutes a firearm, it cannot be considered as a deadly weapon. This is because at the material time, it could not be used to inflict any fatal injury, if used in the manner in which it was meant to be used – that is, for the purpose of firing a bullet –on account of it being in disrepair.

36. The question whether a firearm, which is non-functional can

qualify as a “deadly weapon” as contemplated under Section 398 of the IPC, is also squarely covered by the decision of the Coordinate Bench of this Court in Rakesh (supra). The relevant extract of the said decision is set out below: -

“17. The purpose of using a deadly weapon at the time of

committing robbery, dacoity or attempting one, is

obviously to overawe and instill a sense of fear in the

victim. However, when the so called weapon is in a non

working condition, used merely as a camouflage, whether

such weapon could fall within the definition of ‘deadly

weapon’ is a matter of debate. It can be urged that the

victim who is put in fear of life or grave injury, lest he

parts with his belongings, has no way of knowing that the

weapon being pointed at him is not in working condition or

is fake. The victim in such situation will not resist the

offence thinking that his/her life is in danger. The fear for

life/hurt created in the mind of the victim is a direct result

of the act of the accused.

18. However for the purpose of Section 398 IPC, this

argument does not merit acceptance. As noticed above

even carrying a “deadly weapon” at the time of offence

attracts Section 398 IPC and the actual use or brandishing

is not required. Section 398 IPC applies when at the

time of the attempted robbery or dacoity the accused has

caused or threatened the victim of bodily harm and injury

etc. and at that time the accused was in possession of a

deadly weapon. The word ‘deadly’ qualifies and is

descriptive of the term “weapon”. If the accused is not

carrying a “weapon” or carrying a “weapon” which is not

in a working condition and cannot cause any grievous

bodily harm or injury, it would not qualify and cannot be

regarded as a deadly weapon. The effect thereof is that the

legislative mandate of minimum punishment under Section

398 IPC is not applicable in such cases. Punishment,

howsoever, prescribed under Section 393 IPC is applicable

and also stringent enough and can extend upto 7 years.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

 Judgment delivered on: 15.09.2020

 CRL. A. 807/2017

SONU @ RAJA  Vs STATE 

Print Page

Whether the court can rely on evidence of the police officer if independent witnesses do not support it?

 The contention that the testimony of the police witnesses could

not be relied upon in absence of corroboration by any public witness, is unpersuasive. Merely because witnesses from the general public that had allegedly assembled at the spot, were not examined does not mean that the testimony of police officials is required to be discarded.

17. In the case of Kalpnath Rai Vs. State: (1998) AIR SC 201, the

Supreme Court observed as under:

“There can be no legal proposition that evidence of police

officers, unless supported by independent witnesses, is

unworthy of acceptance. Non-examination of independent

witness or even presence of such witness during police raid

would cast an added duty on the court to adopt greater care

while scrutinising the evidence of the police officers. If the

evidence of the police officer is found acceptable it would

be an erroneous proposition that the court must reject the

prosecution version solely on the ground that no

independent witness was examined.”

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

 Judgment delivered on: 15.09.2020

 CRL. A. 807/2017

SONU @ RAJA  Vs STATE 

CORAM

HON’BLE MR JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU

Dated: 15-9- 2020

Print Page

Whether a witness should depose, that knife was of a particular size for treating it as a deadly weapon?

In order to bring home the charge U/s. 397 IPC, the prosecution must prove by convincing evidence that the knife used by the accused was a deadly weapon. In Salim Vs. State (Delhi Administration), MANU/DE/0339/1987 : 1988 (14) DRJ 85 this Court held as under:

"9.We all understand what a knife means and to categorise it or to fix its size for it to be a deadly weapon may not be appropriate. A knife has also been' described as a pocket knife, pen knife, table knife, kitchen knife, etc. It cannot be denied that a knife can be used as a weapon of offence. It can cut, it can pierce, it can be deadly. To say that a knife to be a deadly weapon should be of a particular size would perhaps be not a correct statement. In the present case, the evidence shows that the injury was caused to Singh Ram witness by a sharp-edged weapon and there is a statement that the accused Salim was carrying a knife and it was with that knife that the injury was caused to the witness. It would not be necessary for the witness to further state as to that was the size of the knife to attract the provisions of Section 397 Indian Penal Code as was contended by Mrs. Ahlawat. This contention that case under Section 397 Indian Penal Code is not made out fails."

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI

Crl. A. 580/2019 and Crl. M.B. 795/2019

Decided On: 27.05.2020

 Pawan  Vs. State

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Rajnish Bhatnagar, J.

Print Page

Whether paper cutter can be considered as deadly weapon?

A paper cutter is also a species of knife inasmuch as, it has a

handle and a blade. Although it is meant for a specific purpose of cutting

paper, there is no denying the fact that its blade is very sharp and is

capable of delivering a fatal injury.

26. In the present case, the paper cutter had been placed on the

complainant’s neck. Undeniably, a deep cut on the neck – which could

be easily inflicted by the said instrument – could be fatal. Indisputably,

such an instrument used as a weapon and placed on the neck of a victim

is sufficient to terrorize a victim into yielding under fear of an injury. In

the given circumstances, this Court is not persuaded to accept that that

use of a paper cutter in committing robbery did not invite a punition

under Section 397 of the IPC.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

 Judgment delivered on: 03.02.2020

 CRL.A. 391/2016

GULFAM @ ZAHOOR Vs  STATE 

CORAM

HON’BLE MR JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU

Dated:FEBRUARY 03, 2020

Print Page

Whether paper cutter blade is a deadly weapon so as to constitute an offence U/S 397 of IPC?

9. Section 397 IPC reads as under:—

“Robbery, or dacoity, with attempt to cause death or grievous hurt.—If, at the time of committing robbery or dacoity, the offender uses any deadly weapon, or causes grievous hurt to any person, or attempts to cause death or grievous hurt to any person, the imprisonment with which such offender shall be punished shall not be less than seven years”.

10. Section 397 IPC envisages that if at the time of committing robbery or dacoity the offender uses any deadly weapon or causes grievous hurt or attempts to cause death or grievous hurt, the imprisonment with which such offender shall be punished shall not be less than seven years.

11. In Rajender Yadav v. The State (NCT of Delhi), 2013 VII AD (Delhi) 359, this Court has held that where the prosecution case itself is that only vegetable knife was found in the possession of the accused, the knife cannot be considered a ‘deadly weapon’ to award the sentence of seven years which is a minimum sentence to be given with the aid of Section 397 IPC”. In Jagdish v. The State, 1985 Crl. L.J. 1621, this Court has held thus:

“Para 9. “A deadly weapon is a thing designed to cause death, for instance, a gun, a bomb, a rifle, a sword or even a knife. A thing not so designed may also be used as a weapon to cause bodily injury and even death. It will be a question of fact in each case whether the particular weapon which may even be a knife can be said to be a deadly weapon. In the instant case, there is evidence to the effect that the knives which the accused were having were small in size. They were ordinary vegetable cutting knives. This renders the possibility of those knives being deadly weapons highly doubtful and as such the appellants shall be entitled to benefit thereof. Consequently it would be unfair to impose the minimum sentence contemplated in Section 397 on the appellants merely because they used those knives in the commission of the crime. …. …..”

12. In Rakesh Kumar v. State of NCT of Delhi, 2005 (1) JCC 334, a Single Judge of this Court has held that there are knives of hundreds of type available in different length and width. All the knives cannot be graded as “deadly weapon” within the meaning of Section 397 IPC. It is the length, shape and the manner of use which makes a knife “deadly weapon”. In Charan Singh v. State, 1998 Crl. L.J. NOC 28 (Delhi), it was held that in order to bring home a charge under Section 397, the prosecution must produce convincing evidence that the knife used by the accused was ‘deadly weapon’.

13. In this case also, the paper cutter blade used was having blade of 6.5 cm, inasmuch as has no sharp and pointed edge, for which no licence was needed, as per the Notifications issued by the Delhi Administration, inasmuch as, no witness has deposed that the paper cutter blade recovered from the appellant qualified to be a knife and more particularly a ‘deadly weapon’. In this case, prosecution has failed to lead any evidence to show that appellant had used a “deadly weapon” while committing robbery, thus, in my view, ingredients of offence under Section 397 IPC are not attracted in this case. In absence of necessary ingredients that have not been established by the prosecution, conviction of appellant under Section 397 IPC cannot be sustained. Accordingly, conviction of appellant is altered from Section 397 IPC to 392 IPC.

In the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi

(Before A.K. Pathak, J.)

Guddu  v.  State 

Crl.A. 721/2018

Decided on March 19, 2019

Citation: 2019 SCC OnLine Del 7855

Print Page