307 IPC | Not Every Grievous Blow Is an Attempt to Kill : Rajasthan High Court Quashes Charge for Want of Homicidal Intention

"To Punish as Attempted Murder, There Must Be a Design to Kill — Not Just a Blow That Hurts", In a significant ruling that reasserts the doctrinal distinction between grievous hurt and attempt to murder, the Rajasthan High Court quashed the framing of charge under Section 307 IPC against two accused, observing that the prosecution failed to establish any prima facie evidence of homicidal intent. Justice Farjand Ali, presiding over the matter in Radhakishan & Anr. v. State of Rajasthan, held that “Section 307 IPC cannot be invoked mechanically or on the mere assertion that grievous injuries have been caused. The provision demands a careful judicial scrutiny… to ascertain whether the essential ingredient of intention or knowledge to cause death is prima facie made out.”

The decision came in a criminal revision filed by Radhakishan and Jugal Kishore, challenging the trial court’s order dated 16.07.2025, which had framed charges against them under Sections 341, 323, 325, 354 and crucially, Section 307 IPC. Holding that such invocation of attempt to murder was legally unsustainable, the High Court set aside the Section 307 charge and transferred the case to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bikaner, since the remaining offences were triable by a magistrate.

"Suspicion, However Grave, Cannot Replace Foundational Facts — Even at Stage of Charge": Justice Farjand Ali Calls Out Overreach in Criminal Prosecution

The case arose out of a bitter property dispute between close relatives. According to the FIR registered on 30.05.2021, the complainant alleged that she was attacked near her home by the petitioners and their family members, one of whom allegedly struck her on the head with a thick wooden stick, causing a grievous injury. It was also alleged that there were attempts to outrage her modesty, and that her gold chain was snatched during the scuffle. Upon the police investigation, a charge-sheet was filed under various provisions, including the grave charge under Section 307 IPC.

The trial court proceeded to frame charges including attempt to murder, citing the grievous injury on the complainant’s head. The petitioners moved the High Court, arguing that there was no basis to assume they intended to cause death, and that the case was being escalated beyond what the facts could legally support.

Justice Farjand Ali, after meticulously analyzing the prosecution’s material and the trial court's reasoning, observed that “the criminal law, being a penal statute, demands strict construction, and the specific provisions relating to hurt cannot be rendered otiose by an indiscriminate resort to the residuary and exceptional offence of attempt to murder.”

He further observed, “Had there been a clear intention to cause death, the assailants would, in the normal course of human conduct, have employed more lethal means or persisted in the assault until the intended consequence was achieved.”

"Grievous Hurt is Not Homicidal Intent — Criminal Law Punishes Mental State, Not Just Injuries": High Court Dissects Mens Rea Under Section 307 IPC

In a sweeping judicial exposition on the legislative architecture of offences affecting the human body, the Court held that the IPC meticulously classifies hurt into simple, grievous, and aggravated forms — and that this classification must not be blurred. The judgment notes:

“To elevate every case of grievous injury into an attempt to murder would be to collapse the carefully constructed statutory gradation of offences under Chapter XVI IPC, thereby undermining the principle of proportionality which lies at the heart of penal justice.”

Justice Ali stressed that the essence of Section 307 lies not in the outcome, but in the state of mind with which the act is committed. “The offence of attempt to murder occupies a qualitatively distinct plane from offences of hurt or grievous hurt… The provision criminalises the attempt, not the consequence.”

The Court clarified that even a grievous or life-threatening injury does not automatically satisfy the requirements of Section 307 IPC unless the injury is accompanied by “intention or knowledge of a homicidal degree”.

“Criminal law does not punish outcomes in abstraction; it punishes culpable states of mind manifested through overt acts.”

No Evidence of Repeated Blows, Lethal Weapon or Persisting Assault — Court Finds No Mens Rea to Kill

Upon testing the prosecution's version “on the anvil of legal principles”, the Court observed that the alleged weapon was a blunt object (lathi), used only once, and the medical opinion did not suggest the injury was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. “There is no material to suggest that the blow was repeated with such ferocity or persistence, or that the assailants adopted a method which unmistakably points towards a deliberate design to extinguish life,” the Court held.

It added that “the conduct of the accused, who allegedly fled upon the arrival of villagers, further negates any homicidal intent.” The surrounding circumstances — including the familial relationship between the parties — were also deemed insufficient to support the inference of a murderous design.

“Animosity is a double-edged sword… While it may explain the occurrence, it equally opens the door to false implication.”

A Word of Caution to Trial Courts: “Judicial Mind Must Be Applied, Not Merely Procedural Formalities”

Criticizing the trial court’s approach, the High Court noted that “the learned trial court fell into manifest error in framing charge under Section 307 IPC without adverting to the settled legal parameters governing the said offence.” The Court reasserted that even at the stage of framing charge — which involves only a prima facie inquiry — judicial application of mind is not a mere formality.

“Suspicion, conjecture, or even surmise — however intense — cannot substitute the legal foundation that Section 307 demands,” the Court said in clear terms.

Ultimately, while affirming the prima facie existence of offences under Sections 341, 323, 325, and 354 read with Section 34 IPC, the Court quashed the Section 307 charge and transferred the matter for trial before the Magistrate.

Date of Decision: 16 January 2026