Injuries Alone Do Not Make an Attempt to Murder — Rajasthan High Court Strikes Down Section 307 IPC Charge for Lack of Mens Rea

"Even If Injuries Are Present, Intention and Knowledge Must Be Proven for Section 307 IPC" — Rajasthan High Court at Jodhpur set aside the framing of attempt to murder charges under Section 307 IPC against six young accused. The Court held that while a prima facie case existed for lesser offences, no ingredients of Section 307 IPC—intention or knowledge to cause death—were made out, even on the face of the prosecution material.

In the words of Justice Sandeep Shah, "The presence of injuries, without more, is not sufficient to bring a charge within the scope of Section 307 IPC. It is the mens rea, the intention or knowledge to kill, that distinguishes a grievous assault from an attempted murder."

The High Court quashed the order of the Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Bhilwara, dated 10.10.2023, which had framed charges under Sections 143, 341, 323, 336, and 307 IPC. The Court upheld the charges under the first four sections but categorically discharged the accused from the charge under Section 307 IPC.

"The Law Does Not Punish Injuries Alone — It Punishes Intent" — Court Explains the Legal Essence of Section 307 IPC

The case stemmed from a midnight altercation on 29 April 2022, where complainant Mustak and his companions were allegedly attacked near Subhash Nagar, Bhilwara. An FIR was lodged implicating 15–20 unknown persons. Later, the names of the six petitioners surfaced not through direct identification, but based on hearsay, without any corroborative evidence establishing their involvement on the scene.

The Court found that the investigation had not produced any witness who directly saw the accused committing the offence. As the Court noted, "All witnesses merely stated that they later came to know the names of the assailants, but not a single witness deposed as to how they came to know. This is a classic case of omnibus allegations without particularisation of acts or roles."

The prosecution relied on the recovery of a lathi from one of the petitioners, Jaishankar Sharma, under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act. But the Court termed this inconsequential, stating, "A lathi is a common household object in rural India. Its recovery alone cannot connect an accused with an attempt to murder unless there is further proof of use with intent."

The injuries to Mustak and Rehan were examined in detail. The injury report revealed that all injuries were simple in nature, caused by blunt objects, with no fatal or life-threatening wound, and no repeated blows on vital parts.

Justice Shah observed, “The absence of grievous or dangerous injuries, the use of blunt objects, and the complete lack of motive clearly show that this case does not cross the threshold of Section 307 IPC.”

"Section 307 IPC Requires More Than a Fight — It Requires an Intent to Kill" — High Court Cites Supreme Court Precedents to Set Legal Benchmarks

The Court engaged in an in-depth legal analysis, explaining the essential components of Section 307 IPC. It quoted the Supreme Court’s decision in Sarju Prasad v. State of Bihar (1964), emphasizing that “the mere fact that an injury does not affect a vital organ does not mean Section 307 does not apply—but the intention to kill must be present. That is what the prosecution must show.”

Similarly, in Hari Singh v. Sukhbir Singh (1988), the apex court had held that, "Under Section 307, what matters is not whether death ensued, but whether the act was done with intention or knowledge sufficient to make it murder if death had followed." The High Court applied this principle, highlighting that "the circumstances here do not reflect either such intention or such knowledge."

Further, the Court relied on Vasant Vithu Jadhav v. State of Maharashtra (2004) and its own ruling in Samane Khan v. State of Rajasthan (2023), to reiterate that "injury is not a necessary element under the first limb of Section 307 IPC. However, the intent to kill must still be proven."

The Court explained that "in a sudden brawl, with no prior animosity, no deadly weapons, no repeated or targeted injuries, and no specific acts attributed to individual accused, the requisite criminal intent to invoke Section 307 IPC cannot be imputed."

"Framing of Charges Is Not a Mechanical Process" — Court Reminds Trial Judges of the Duty to Apply Judicial Mind

Justice Shah emphasized that the stage of framing charges under Sections 227 and 228 CrPC requires the Court to form an opinion on whether a prima facie case exists — not merely to act as a “mouthpiece of the prosecution.”

Citing the Supreme Court in Sajjan Kumar v. CBI (2010), the Court underscored that "If the entire record does not reveal an offence, even prima facie, it is the duty of the Court to discharge the accused. A charge under Section 307 IPC cannot be framed just because there was an injury."

The Court further noted that "The learned trial court failed to consider these legal thresholds and merely relied on the number of assailants and presence of simple injuries to frame a serious charge that carries a maximum punishment of life imprisonment."

No Mens Rea, No 307 — Only Lesser Offences Stand

The Rajasthan High Court, therefore, allowed the criminal revision petition partially. It discharged the accused from Section 307 IPC but retained the charges under Sections 143, 341, 323, and 336 IPC, all of which are triable by a Magistrate.

The Court directed the matter to be transferred to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhilwara, and ordered the accused to appear before that court on 24.09.2025.

Concluding the order, Justice Shah declared: "The law does not punish a man merely because another is hurt. It punishes a man because he intended to hurt in a manner that law has proscribed. In the absence of such intention, the offence of attempt to murder cannot be said to exist, even if injury is found."

Date of Decision: 04.09.2025