Section 307 IPC | Absence Of Bodily Injury Does Not Exclude Offence If Intention Or Knowledge Is Established From Surrounding Circumstances: Delhi High Court

"The determinative consideration is the intention or knowledge accompanying the act, which may be inferred from the surrounding circumstances. Therefore, the contention that none of the police officials sustained injuries cannot, by itself, justify setting aside the conviction." Delhi High Court, in an authoritative pronouncement, held that the absence of bodily injury capable of causing death does not by itself exclude an offence punishable under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

Upholding the conviction and seven-year sentence of an occupant of a vehicle that deliberately rammed a police patrol van, a single bench of Justice Madhu Jain observed that the determinative inquiry under Section 307 IPC is not the occurrence of actual injury, but whether the accused acted with the requisite intention or knowledge gathered from the surrounding circumstances.

The prosecution case stemmed from an incident on the intervening night of January 29 and 30, 2011, when a Delhi Police PCR van intercepted a white Tata-407 tempo allegedly involved in loading cattle near Kunwar Singh Nagar. Upon being signaled to stop, the tempo driver and occupants threatened the police team, reversed the vehicle, accelerated, and deliberately rammed the PCR van before fleeing the spot despite police firing at its tyres. The appellant, subsequently implicated through a co-accused's disclosure statement and identified during trial after refusing a Test Identification Parade, was convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge-05, West District, Tis Hazari Courts, under Sections 307 and 353 read with Section 34 IPC and sentenced to undergo seven years of rigorous imprisonment.

The primary questions before the court were whether the intentional ramming of a police vehicle without causing bodily injury satisfies the statutory ingredients of attempt to murder under Section 307 IPC, and whether conviction can be sustained principally on the testimony of police officials despite minor variations in the verbal threats attributed to the accused.

Absence Of Physical Injury Does Not Preclude Section 307 IPC Conviction

Rejecting the appellant's contention that Section 307 IPC could not be invoked because none of the police officials sustained injuries, the High Court reiterated settled jurisprudence that actual hurt is not a sine qua non for an attempt to commit murder. Relying upon the Supreme Court's ruling in State of M.P. v. Kanha, the bench stressed that criminal liability turns squarely upon the intention or knowledge with which an act is executed.

The bench emphasized that the collision was neither accidental nor an inadvertent traffic event, pointing to evidence showing deliberate and targeted hostility towards public servants on duty.

"The evidence is not confined to an accidental or unexplained collision. PW-5 and PW-6 have spoken of threats immediately preceding the incident. The driver did not merely continue driving when signaled to stop, he first reversed the tempo and thereafter accelerated towards the PCR van. These circumstances, considered together, support the finding that the vehicle was deliberately driven into the police van."

Section 307 IPC Does Not Require Proof Of Prior Planning Or Repeated Impacts

The High Court repelled the defence argument that a single vehicular impact driven at moderate speed excluded murderous intent. The bench clarified that criminal law does not mandate sustained or repeated assaults, nor does it require proof of premeditated conspiracy to establish an offence under Section 307 IPC.

The court pointed out that deliberately aiming a heavy commercial vehicle at an occupied police vehicle after issuing verbal death threats sufficiently satisfies the statutory threshold of knowledge and intent.

"The fact that the collision occurred only once does not necessarily establish the absence of the requisite intention or knowledge, nor does Section 307 IPC require proof of prior planning."

Minor Discrepancies In Verbal Exhortations Do Not Erode Core Eyewitness Evidence

The appellant had argued that material discrepancies existed between the testimonies of the police officials regarding the exact words of threat used before the collision. Addressing this divergence, Justice Jain held that eyewitness testimonies must be appreciated as a unified whole rather than being dissected on hyper-technical nuances.

Citing the decisions of the Supreme Court in Leela Ram v. State of Haryana and State of U.P. v. M.K. Anthony, the High Court ruled that minor variations in the reproduction of spoken words do not impair the core substratum of the prosecution narrative.

"Even honest and truthful witnesses may differ in some details unrelated to the main incident because power of observation, retention and reproduction differ with individuals."

No Absolute Rule That Police Deposition Must Be Treated With Suspicion

Addressing the appellant's contention that the case rested solely on interested police witnesses without independent public corroboration, the High Court held that the evidentiary value of official witnesses cannot be discounted merely due to their uniform.

Referring to the Apex Court precedent in State (NCT of Delhi) v. Sunil, the bench underscored that police personnel are competent witnesses and their testimonies, when consistent and corroborated by contemporaneous duty registers and mechanical inspection reports showing fresh vehicle damage, are fully capable of sustaining a criminal conviction.

"The law is well settled that there is no absolute rule that police officers cannot be cited as witnesses or that their depositions should be treated with suspect."

Refusal To Join Test Identification Parade Operates As Relevant Corroborative Circumstance

The bench also evaluated the appellant's refusal to participate in the Test Identification Parade held on March 22, 2013, following his production from Ballabhgarh Jail.

The court observed that while an accused's refusal to participate in a TIP does not by itself constitute substantive proof of guilt, it forms a vital and relevant corroborative circumstance under Section 9 of the Evidence Act when evaluated alongside confident dock identification made by eyewitnesses during trial.

Non-Examination Of Informant And Missing Offending Vehicle Not Fatal To Prosecution

The High Court held that the non-recovery of the offending Tata-407 tempo and the non-examination of the initial informant who reported cow theft did not prejudice the prosecution case.

The court explained that the initial tip-off merely explained the presence of the police team at the scene, whereas the core offence tried before the court pertained to the subsequent physical assault on the PCR van, which was independently proved by ocular evidence and mechanical inspection.

Finding no infirmity in the assessment of the trial court, the High Court dismissed the criminal appeal and affirmed both the judgment of conviction and the order on sentence. The judgment reaffirms the critical legal proposition that driving a vehicle directly into law enforcement personnel to evade apprehension constitutes an attempt to murder under Section 307 IPC, irrespective of whether the victims suffered bodily injuries.

Date of Decision: 14 October 2026