Section 307 IPC | Act Of Leaving Spot, Procuring A Weapon And Returning Indicates Clear Intent To Commit Murder: Delhi High Court

"The intervening act of leaving the spot, procuring a knife and returning to the place of occurrence is a circumstance relevant in determining the intention with which the subsequent assault was committed. It negates the defence plea that the assault was merely an instantaneous one or on the spur of the moment." Delhi High Court, in a judgment, held that an accused's conduct in withdrawing from a scene of confrontation, acquiring a weapon, and returning to assault the victim constitutes compelling evidence of the "intention or knowledge" required to sustain a conviction under Section 307 of the IPC.

A single judge bench of Justice Chandrashekharan Sudha observed that such premeditated preparation serves to effectively rebut claims that an attack was a spontaneous reaction to provocation.

The case originated from an incident on April 9, 2021, where the accused, Vikrant @ Ashu, was allegedly hurling abuses in a public street. When the victim (PW3) requested the accused to refrain from using foul language due to the presence of women in the neighborhood, the accused retorted by threatening the victim, left the scene, and returned shortly thereafter armed with a knife. He subsequently inflicted multiple "dangerous" stab wounds on the victim’s chest and abdomen before fleeing. The trial court convicted the accused under Section 307 IPC, leading to the present appeal.

The primary legal issue before the Court was whether the prosecution had sufficiently established the mens rea required for "attempt to murder" under Section 307 IPC, or if the act should be mitigated to "voluntarily causing hurt with a dangerous weapon" under Section 324 IPC on the premise that it was a spontaneous altercation. The Court was further tasked with determining the credibility of the defence’s theory of false implication.

Court Explains Essential Ingredients of Section 307 IPC

Justice Sudha emphasized that the essence of Section 307 IPC is not the consequence of the act, but the intention or knowledge with which it is committed. Citing Om Parkash v. State of Punjab, the Court reiterated that the act must be done with the intent or knowledge requisite for murder, and the expression "by that act" does not necessitate that the immediate effect must be death. The Court noted that intent, being a state of mind, must be inferred from the circumstances, including the nature of the weapon, the targeted body parts, and the persistence of the assault.

Evidence of Premeditation Rebuts "Spur of the Moment" Plea

The bench underscored that the accused’s specific behavior—specifically the time gap between the initial verbal confrontation and the return with a lethal weapon—negated the argument of a sudden, impulsive reaction. The consistent testimony of the injured victim and eyewitnesses regarding this sequence of events provided sufficient evidence of intent. The Court held that targeting vital organs such as the chest and abdomen with a knife, as corroborated by the medical records and the MLC (Ext. PW7/A), further solidified the conclusion that the accused acted with the specific intention to cause death.

Defense of False Implication Rejected as Afterthought

Regarding the accused’s claim that he was falsely implicated due to a prior dispute between the victim and a relative (DW1), the Court noted that this plea was never raised during the cross-examination of the prosecution witnesses. The Court held that a defence raised for the first time during the accused's statement under Section 313 CrPC, without being put to the victim or witnesses, lacks evidentiary merit. Furthermore, the Court expressed deep skepticism regarding the presence of the defence witness at the scene, given his employment duty hours.

Modification of Sentence Based on Antecedents

While confirming the conviction under Section 307 IPC, the High Court took note of the accused's criminal antecedents and his conduct during incarceration. Although the trial court had sentenced him to seven years of rigorous imprisonment, the High Court observed that, while a conviction was justified, a sentence of six years of rigorous imprisonment was sufficient to meet the ends of justice in the present facts and circumstances.

Date of Decision: 23 September 2026