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
