Court added that while intention can be inferred from surrounding circumstances, a conviction under Section 307 IPC cannot be sustained unless such intention is proved.
How can courts determine intention under Section 307 IPC?
Why did the Supreme Court set aside the conviction under Section 307 IPC?
The FIR was initially lodged under Sections 323, 325 and 506 IPC, but Section 307 IPC was added later.
Before the Supreme Court, the principal issue was whether the evidence on record established the essential ingredients of attempt to murder under Section 307 IPC.
The Supreme Court has held that the seriousness of an injury alone cannot determine whether an accused is guilty of attempt to murder under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) [corresponding to Section 109 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS)]. The prosecution must independently prove that the accused had the intention or knowledge required under the provision, Court clarified.
A Bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and N Kotiswar Singh said the intention to commit murder cannot be presumed merely because the victim's injuries were later found to be dangerous to life.
Court explained that the expression "such intention" in Section 307, IPC refers to the intention to cause death, to cause such bodily injury as the offender knows is likely to cause death, or to cause bodily injury sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death.
"The essential ingredient of the offence of attempt to murder is the intention to cause death. Such intention exists prior to the actual attempt and must be established independently of the act itself or the actus reus. Once the requisite intention to commit murder is proved, the eventual outcome of the attempt becomes irrelevant, unless the attempt culminates in death, in which case the offence would fall within Section 300 IPC," the Bench observed.
Court added that while intention can be inferred from surrounding circumstances, a conviction under Section 307 IPC cannot be sustained unless such intention is proved.
How can courts determine intention under Section 307 IPC?
Answering this question, the Bench said intention may be gathered from factors such as the weapon used, the words spoken by the accused during the incident, the motive behind the attack, the part of the body targeted, the nature and extent of injuries, and the force and manner in which the blows were inflicted.
It also clarified that an accused cannot be acquitted under Section 307 merely because the injuries caused were simple. Referring to State of Madhya Pradesh v. Saleem alias Chamaru (2005), Court reiterated that the decisive factor is the accused's intention or knowledge, not the nature of the injury.
"The nature of injury actually caused does render considerable assistance to the court in ascertaining the intention of the accused. However, courts may also ascertain the intention from other circumstances, even without reference to actual wounds," the Bench observed.
Why did the Supreme Court set aside the conviction under Section 307 IPC?
The judgment came in three appeals filed by Roshan Lal and others against a 2010 judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, which had affirmed their conviction by a Rewari trial court.
The case arose from an FIR registered on June 6, 2000. The FIR was initially lodged under Sections 323, 325 and 506 IPC, but Section 307 IPC was added later. The prosecution alleged that the accused assaulted Amar Singh, a goods clerk with the Railways, with lathis.
In 2002, the trial court convicted Roshan Lal, Satya Prakash and Sajjan Singh under Sections 307 read with 34 IPC and Section 506 IPC, relying on the testimony of the injured complainant and an eyewitness. Each was sentenced to seven years' rigorous imprisonment and fined Rs 5,000. The high court later upheld the conviction.
Before the Supreme Court, the principal issue was whether the evidence on record established the essential ingredients of attempt to murder under Section 307 IPC.
After examining the evidence, the Bench found that the appellants had indeed caused the injuries suffered by Amar Singh. It also noted that the defence had failed to discredit the testimony of the injured witness or the eyewitness.
However, Court found no evidence of prior enmity between the parties. Instead, the evidence showed that the incident occurred suddenly after Amar Singh intervened in an altercation involving a jeep driver.
According to the Bench, the assault appeared to be a spontaneous reaction in the heat of the moment rather than a pre-planned attempt to kill the complainant.
"The circumstances, viewed holistically, suggest that the object of the appellants was primarily to deter or intimidate the complainant from interfering in the ongoing altercation. It is also significant that the weapons allegedly used by the appellants were ordinary lathis, which, though capable of causing grievous hurt depending upon the manner of use, cannot in the facts of the present case be regarded as inherently deadly weapons," Court observed.
The Bench further noted that there was nothing on record to show that the accused continued the assault with such brutality or ferocity as to clearly indicate an intention to cause death.
"In the absence of evidence showing prior motive, premeditation, repeated deliberate blows with deadly weapons, or any conduct indicative of a determined effort to cause death, this Court is unable to hold that the appellants possessed the intention or knowledge necessary to attract Section 307 IPC," Court held.
Conviction altered to Section 325 of the IPC
Holding that the prosecution had failed to establish the intention or knowledge necessary for an offence under Section 307, IPC, Court concluded that the conviction for attempt to murder could not be sustained.
At the same time, it found that all the ingredients of voluntarily causing grievous hurt under Section 325 of the IPC (corresponding to Section 117 of the BNS) were fully established.
Accordingly, the Bench altered the appellants' conviction from Section 307 read with Section 34, IPC to Section 325 read with Section 34, IPC.
Court sentenced the appellants to the period already undergone and directed each of them to pay a fine of Rs 50,000, to be paid to the injured complainant.
Case Title: Roshan Lal Vs The State of Haryana & Anr
Bench: Justices Sanjay Karol and N Kotiswar Singh
Date of Judgment: May 22, 2026
