The Supreme Court has held that the seriousness of an injury by itself cannot justify conviction for attempt to murder under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), unless the prosecution establishes the essential element of intention or knowledge to cause death.

The bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh modified the conviction of three accused persons from attempt to murder under Section 307 IPC to voluntarily causing grievous hurt under Section 325 IPC. 

The dispute arose from an incident in Haryana in June 2000 involving Amar Singh, who was performing night watchman duty in his village. According to the prosecution, Amar Singh noticed a group assaulting another person and intervened. Following his intervention, the accused allegedly attacked him with lathis and physical force. The victim sustained head injuries and later required extensive medical treatment. 

Medical evidence placed before the courts showed that Amar Singh suffered severe injuries. Doctors found fractures in both parietal bones, neurological complications and prolonged health issues, including a deteriorating medical condition that reportedly progressed toward multi-organ failure. The victim underwent extended hospitalization and treatment over multiple periods. 

The trial court had convicted Roshan Lal, Satya Prakash and Sajjan Singh under Section 307 read with Section 34 IPC and Section 506 IPC, sentencing them to seven years of rigorous imprisonment along with fines. The Punjab and Haryana High Court later upheld the convictions, relying on eyewitness testimony and medical evidence demonstrating the seriousness of the injuries. 

Before the Supreme Court, the appellants argued that there was no evidence of any intention to kill the complainant. They contended that the incident occurred suddenly during an altercation and that there was no prior planning, motive or premeditation. They also questioned discrepancies between the medical and ocular evidence and argued that the prosecution had failed to prove the ingredients necessary for an offence under Section 307 IPC. 

Examining the law relating to attempt to murder, the Supreme Court reiterated that two essential elements are necessary for attracting Section 307 IPC — the existence of intention or knowledge to commit murder and an overt act toward that objective. The Court emphasized that intention remains the decisive factor and may be inferred from surrounding circumstances such as the nature of weapons used, the body parts targeted, motive and the overall manner of assault. 

While evaluating the facts, the Court noted that no evidence had been produced showing prior enmity, planning or any deliberate intention to kill Amar Singh. Instead, the assault appeared to have arisen suddenly when the complainant interfered in an ongoing altercation. The Court observed that ordinary lathis had been used and there was no evidence of persistent brutality indicating a determined effort to cause death. 

The Court stated that although the injuries were undoubtedly grievous and later resulted in serious complications, the gravity of injuries alone could not automatically establish the intention to commit murder.

The judgment observed that the injuries nevertheless clearly fell within the definition of “grievous hurt” under Section 320 IPC because they involved fractures and life-endangering consequences requiring prolonged treatment. Therefore, the Court held that the ingredients of Section 325 IPC stood fully established. 

Consequently, the Supreme Court altered the conviction from Section 307 read with Section 34 IPC to Section 325 read with Section 34 IPC. Taking into account the imprisonment already undergone by the accused during trial and appeal proceedings, the Court sentenced them to the period already served and directed each appellant to pay ₹50,000 as compensation to the injured complainant, failing which they would undergo an additional six months of simple imprisonment. 

Case Details

Case Title: Roshan Lal Versus The State Of Haryana & Anr 

Citation: JURISHOUR-1342-SC-2026

Case No.: Criminal Appeal No. 2207 Of 2011

Date: 22/05/2026

Read More: GST Levy on Transfer of Leasehold Rights: SC Dismisses Dept.’s SLP