Presence Of Injury Is Not Sine Qua Non For Section 307 IPC; Intent To Kill And Overt Act Are Sufficient: Madhya Pradesh High Court

“Aimed Knife at Victim’s Neck – Bleeding, Torn Muscles and Cut Arteries Reveal Grave Suspicion” - In a striking judgment that underscores the gravity of murderous intent regardless of whether an injury turns fatal, the Madhya Pradesh High Court upheld the framing of attempt to murder charges against Vivek @ Vicky, accused of assaulting a man with a knife by aiming for the neck. Justice Gajendra Singh dismissed the accused’s plea for discharge under Section 250 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, ruling that the victim's account and medical findings together create a “grave suspicion”—the legal threshold necessary to proceed to trial.

The case arose from a midnight assault outside Nagda Police Station on 22 May 2025, where the accused allegedly threatened to kill the victim and then stabbed him, aiming for his throat. The attack was deflected, and the knife struck the victim’s left arm, causing a deep incised wound with torn muscles, cut arteries, and excessive bleeding, according to the hospital records.

Rejecting the plea that the injuries were not “dangerous to life,” the Court held that the intent and execution of the act, not the eventual survival of the victim, determine the applicability of attempt to murder provisions.

“Knife Was Aimed at the Neck – Deep Cuts and Blood Loss Reveal a Chilling Attempt”: Court Says Charge Under Section 351(3) BNS Clearly Made Out

The petitioner had challenged the framing of charges under Section 109(1) and Section 351(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, arguing that the injuries, though serious, were not fatal or on vital parts, and that the doctor’s report stated there was no danger to life. But the Court was unmoved.

Referring to the victim Rahul’s statement, the Court recounted the sequence:

“As per the statement of victim Rahul, the revision petitioner Vivek @ Vicky extended the threat to kill, thereafter, assaulted him by knife targeting neck of Rahul.”

Justice Gajendra Singh noted that although the neck attack was intercepted, the wound inflicted was severe enough to expose deep tissues, fat layers, cut veins and arteries, and caused massive bleeding, necessitating hospitalisation until 2 June 2025.

“Annexure-P/1... mentions that the second incised wound at left forearm [was] deep with tear of muscles and fat plain with excessive bleeding with open cut veins and muscular arteries approximately size 10x3x3 cm.”

The Court concluded that such medical evidence cannot be brushed aside and reflects a serious assault executed with murderous intent, regardless of whether the injury was ultimately classified as life-threatening by the doctor.

“Trial Judge is Not a Post Office – Grave Suspicion Mandates Trial”: Court Warns Against Misuse of Discharge Provisions

Referring to the procedural scope under Section 250 BNSS, corresponding to Section 227 CrPC, the Court reiterated that discharge is not a tool to evaluate final innocence, and that at this stage, only grave suspicion needs to be established—not proof beyond doubt.

Quoting the Supreme Court’s view in P. Vijayan v. State of Kerala, the Court observed:

“The Judge is not a mere post office to frame the charge at the behest of the prosecution, but has to exercise his judicial mind... However, he is not to weigh evidence as if conducting a trial.”

Similarly, relying on Sajjan Kumar v. CBI, the Court noted that:

“Where the materials placed before the court disclose grave suspicion against the accused which has not been properly explained, the court will be fully justified in framing a charge and proceeding with the trial.”

In light of this legal framework, the Court found that the trial court was justified in not discharging the accused, as the circumstances—threat to kill, attack with a deadly weapon aimed at a vital organ, and serious resulting injury—more than satisfied the threshold of grave suspicion.

“Attempted Murder Need Not Result in Death – Aim, Intention and Act Are Enough”: High Court Reasserts Law on Section 307 IPC

In a decisive clarification of the legal position under Section 307 IPC (now mirrored in Section 351(3) BNS), the Court reaffirmed that causing injury is not essential to attract the offence of attempt to murder.

“From the plain reading of Section 307 of IPC, it is clear that presence of injury is not sine qua non for making out an offence... If any act is done with intention or knowledge that by that act death may be caused, it falls within Section 307.”

Justice Singh stressed that courts must consider not just the consequence of an attack, but also the targeted body part, weapon used, and circumstances of the assault to assess whether the accused had the requisite mens rea to commit murder.

The Court underscored:

“The nature of injuries is not a decisive factor to determine as to whether the act of the assailant would be an act punishable under Section 307.”

“No Illegality in Framing Charges – Attempt on Neck, Muscle-Tearing Wound, and Threats Justify Trial”: Revision Petition Dismissed

Concluding its analysis, the Court ruled:

“Testing the framing of charges on the standard of ‘grave suspicion’ and position of law that the nature of injuries is not a decisive factor... the impugned order does not suffer from any illegality.”

With these words, the Court dismissed the revision petition, thereby upholding the framing of charges under Sections 109(1) and 351(3) BNS, and allowing the trial to proceed.

The ruling stands as a strong reaffirmation of the judiciary’s consistent stance that attempt to murder is a crime of intent, not outcome, and that serious targeted assaults cannot be downplayed based on medical technicalities alone.

Date of Decision: 11 November 2025