Section 307 IPC Is Not A 'Minor Offence' To Section 324 IPC; Accused Cannot Be Convicted For Attempt To Murder If Only Charged With Voluntarily Causing Hurt: Delhi High Court

"Only if the two offences are cognate offences, wherein the main ingredients are common, the one punishable among them with a lesser sentence can be regarded as a minor offence, vis-a-vis the other offence", Delhi High Court, in a significant ruling, held that Section 307 of the IPC (Attempt to Murder) cannot be treated as a "minor offence" to Section 324 IPC (Voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons) under Section 222 of the CrPC.

A single judge bench of Justice Chandrasekharan Sudha observed that while an accused charged under Section 307 could be convicted for the minor offence of Section 324, the reverse is not legally permissible as the ingredients of the two sections are fundamentally different.

The case originated from an incident on December 31, 2011, where the appellant (PW2) intervened in a brawl involving his cousins and the accused persons (A1 and A2). He alleged that A2 caught hold of him while A1 stabbed him with a knife, leading to an FIR under Section 324/34 IPC. The trial court acquitted the accused in 2017 after finding contradictions between the medical evidence and oral testimony, prompting this appeal by the injured victim.

The primary question before the court was whether an appellate court can convict an accused under Section 307 IPC when they were originally charged only under Section 324 IPC. The court also examined the admissibility of medical records (MLC) when the examining doctor is unavailable and the impact of a conflict between ocular and medical evidence.

Admissibility of Medical Evidence Under Section 32 Of The Evidence Act

The court first addressed the challenge regarding the non-examination of the doctor who prepared the Medico-Legal Case (MLC) report. It noted that the prosecution examined a record clerk and a substitute doctor who identified the original doctor's handwriting and signatures, stating the original examiner had left the hospital and could not be found without undue delay.

Justice Sudha observed that under Section 32(2) of the Evidence Act, statements made by a person in the discharge of professional duty are relevant facts when the person’s attendance cannot be procured reasonably. The court held that the prosecution successfully resorted to Section 32(2) read with Sections 47 and 67 of the Evidence Act to prove the MLC.

Court Explains Proof Of Documents By Acquaintance With Handwriting

Conflict Between Ocular Testimony and Medical Findings

The court highlighted a critical discrepancy between the appellant's testimony and the medical records. While the appellant claimed he was stabbed with a knife—an act that would typically result in an incised wound—the MLC recorded "lacerated wounds," which are generally caused by blunt objects.

The bench noted that the substitute doctor (PW5) admitted in cross-examination that lacerations are caused by blunt force or even a fall on a hard surface. The court found that "the medical evidence does not support the version of PW2 that he had been stabbed with a knife," thereby weakening the prosecution's narrative of a sharp-weapon assault.

Medical Evidence Must Corroborate Ocular Version To Sustain Conviction

Scope of Section 222 CrPC And The Definition Of Minor Offences

A pivotal legal argument raised by the appellant was that the court should invoke Section 222 CrPC to convict the accused under Section 307 IPC (Attempt to Murder), despite the charge being for Section 324 IPC. The court rejected this, clarifying the "major vs. minor" offence doctrine.

The bench explained that Section 222(1) CrPC allows conviction for a minor offence even if it wasn't specifically charged, provided the ingredients are subsumed within the major offence. However, the court held that Section 307 IPC is not a minor offence compared to Section 324 IPC.

Section 307 IPC Is Not A Minor Offence To Section 324 IPC

The court observed that the ingredients of Section 307 (intention to murder) and Section 324 (causing hurt by dangerous means) are distinct. It noted that while a person charged under Section 307 could be convicted under Section 324 if the higher intent isn't proved, the "minor" charge of Section 324 cannot be used to leapfrog into a conviction for the "major" offence of Section 307.

"Section 307 is not a minor offence as contemplated under Section 222(1) Cr.P.C. when compared to Section 324 IPC."

Failure To Challenge Shabby Investigation At The Relevant Stage

Regarding the appellant's grievances about a "botched" investigation—specifically the non-recovery of the weapon and failure to examine key witnesses—the court noted that the appellant remained silent during the trial. The bench observed that the appellant could have filed a protest petition or a complaint under Section 200 CrPC but failed to do so.

The court emphasized that at the appellate stage, it cannot entertain claims of a deliberate "shabby" investigation to overturn an acquittal when the victim did not seek legal remedies during the pendency of the trial.

Appellate Court Limited By Scope Of Interference In Acquittal Orders

Finally, the court reiterated the established principle that an appellate court should not interfere with an acquittal unless the findings are "perverse, manifestly erroneous, or based on a misappreciation of material evidence." If the trial court's view is a plausible one, it must be upheld.

The High Court dismissed the appeal, affirming that the trial court's decision to acquit was a reasonable view based on the evidence. It concluded that the lack of corroboration from medical evidence and the legal bar on upgrading the charge to Section 307 IPC under Section 222 CrPC rendered the appeal meritless.

Date of Decision: April 23, 2026