Section 307 IPC cannot be invoked mechanically; intent to kill must be clearly established: Raj HC

Jaipur: The Rajasthan High Court has reiterated that the offence of attempt to murder under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code cannot be invoked mechanically and that the existence of a clear homicidal intention or knowledge is the sine qua non for attracting the provision, irrespective of the gravity of injuries caused.

Justice Farjand Ali held that criminal courts must carefully distinguish between offences of hurt or grievous hurt and the graver offence of attempt to murder, observing that every case involving grievous injury does not automatically fall within the ambit of Section 307 IPC.

The court explained that the Penal Code provides a graded and internally coherent framework under Chapter XVI to deal with bodily injuries, ranging from simple hurt to grievous hurt and aggravated forms thereof. Section 307, the court held, occupies an exceptional space and is attracted only when the act is accompanied by an intention or knowledge of a homicidal degree — such that, if death had ensued, the offence would amount to murder.

The High Court emphasised that intention is a mental element incapable of direct proof and must be inferred from surrounding circumstances such as the nature of the weapon used, the part of the body targeted, the number and force of blows, the conduct of the accused before and after the incident, and the overall manner of assault. Mere animosity or strained relations between parties, the court noted, is insufficient to infer an intention to kill.

These principles were laid down while partly allowing a criminal revision petition filed by Radhakishan and his son Jugalkishore, who had challenged an order of the Additional Sessions Judge (Women Atrocities Cases), Bikaner, framing charges including Section 307 IPC against them.

According to the prosecution, the complainant alleged that she was assaulted with a lathi during a family dispute arising out of long-standing property litigation. The medical evidence recorded a grievous injury caused by a blunt object, but did not indicate that the injury was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death.

After examining the FIR, witness statements and medical evidence, the High Court found that while the allegations may disclose offences of voluntarily causing hurt and grievous hurt, there was no prima facie material to establish the essential ingredient of homicidal intent required for Section 307 IPC. The court noted the absence of repeated or forceful blows, the use of a non-deadly weapon, and the conduct of the accused in desisting after the arrival of villagers as circumstances negating an intention to commit murder.

Holding that the trial court had committed a manifest error in framing a charge under Section 307 IPC without applying the settled legal parameters, the High Court quashed the charge for attempt to murder. However, it upheld the framing of charges under Sections 341, 323, 325 and 354 read with Section 34 IPC.

Since the remaining offences are triable by a Magistrate, the High Court directed that the case be transferred to the court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bikaner, for trial in accordance with law.

—

Case Title
Radhakishan & Another vs State of Rajasthan & Another
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 1100/2025

Court
High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan, Jodhpur Bench

Bench
Justice Farjand Ali

Advocates
For the petitioners: Mr. Sanjay Kumar Poonia
For the respondents: Mr. Dharmveer Choudhary; Mr. N.S. Chandawat, Deputy Government Advocate