The Supreme Court has ruled that an attempt to murder charge cannot be discarded merely because the injuries suffered by the victims were on their arms, wrists or other non-vital parts of the body. The Court emphasised that the intention or knowledge accompanying the alleged act must be assessed from the surrounding circumstances, including the weapons used and the manner of the attack.
A Bench of Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice Vipul M. Pancholi restored a charge under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code against an accused in a case involving an alleged attempt to run over a family with a tractor, followed by an assault with sharp-edged agricultural weapons.
Buy Now: 90+ Supreme Court Judgments – September 2026
The case arose from an incident on November 26, 2020, in an agricultural field at Village Polas, Tehsil Degana, District Nagaur, Rajasthan.
According to the prosecution material recounted in the judgment, Abhishek was pruning Khejri trees when the accused entered the field with other family members, driving a tractor at high speed. The principal accused allegedly steered the tractor repeatedly towards Abhishek and his family members in an attempt to run them over.
The tractor allegedly struck Abhishek’s mother, Indra Devi, on her waist, causing her to fall. The accused persons were then alleged to have assaulted Abhishek and his family with sharp-edged agricultural implements described as kashi and axes.
Medical records showed that Abhishek sustained a bone-deep incised wound measuring 7 cm by 3 cm on his left arm. His father, Dilip Kumar, suffered a similar bone-deep wound on his right wrist and another muscle-deep incised wound measuring 6 cm by 3 cm on his forearm. His mother sustained an abrasion measuring 2 cm by 1 cm.
An FIR was registered at Merta Road Police Station on November 27, 2020. Following investigation, the police submitted a charge sheet on July 17, 2021.
On November 28, 2023, the Additional District and Sessions Judge at Merta framed charges against the principal accused under Sections 447, 323, 324 and 326 read with Section 34 IPC, as well as Section 307 IPC. Charges under the other provisions were also framed against the remaining accused.
Three accused challenged the framing of charges before the Rajasthan High Court.
By its order dated April 1, 2025, the High Court held that the injuries suffered by Abhishek and his father were on non-vital parts of the body, namely the wrist and arm, while his mother had suffered abrasions. On that basis, it concluded that an offence under Section 307 IPC was not made out and directed the trial court to frame a charge under Section 308 instead.
Abhishek challenged that decision before the Supreme Court.
Counsel for Abhishek argued that the High Court had attached undue importance to the location of the wounds while overlooking the alleged manner of the assault.
The appellant maintained that the accused had arrived armed with axes and a tractor amid prior disputes between the parties. It was further argued that the injuries on the arms resulted from defensive movements made to protect against axe blows allegedly aimed at the victims’ heads.
The State of Rajasthan supported the appeal. It submitted that the alleged use of a tractor to repeatedly target the family, followed by an armed assault, provided sufficient material to proceed against the principal accused under Section 307 IPC.
The accused respondents did not appear before the Supreme Court despite service of notice.
The Supreme Court reiterated that Section 307 IPC requires an assessment of whether an act was committed with such intention or knowledge, and in such circumstances, that the accused would have been guilty of murder had death resulted.
It explained that an actual fatal or life-threatening injury is not essential for the provision to apply. Although the nature, seriousness and location of an injury can assist in determining intention, they cannot be considered in isolation.
The Court held that intention or knowledge must be inferred from the totality of the circumstances. Relevant considerations include the nature of the weapons deployed, the persistence of the assault, prior animosity between the parties and the manner in which the attack was launched.
In reaching this conclusion, the Bench relied on State of Maharashtra v. Balram Bama Patil, State of Madhya Pradesh v. Saleem alias Chamaru and Jage Ram v. State of Haryana. It also referred to Surender Kumar v. State of Haryana, which reiterated that an injury on a non-vital body part does not, by itself, exclude Section 307 IPC.
Applying these principles, the Supreme Court examined the investigation material, including witness statements, spot inspection reports, medical certificates and recoveries under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act.
The Bench noted the allegations that the principal accused drove a tractor at high speed into the field and repeatedly steered it towards the family, eventually striking Abhishek’s mother. It also considered the alleged subsequent assault with axes and other sharp-edged weapons.
The charge sheet recorded Abhishek’s statement that the accused surrounded the family and attacked their heads with axes. According to that account, Abhishek and his father raised their arms to protect their heads, resulting in the blows landing on their upper limbs.
The Court found that the High Court had erred by undertaking a summary and technical assessment of the injuries and treating their location on non-vital body parts as sufficient reason to exclude the attempt to murder charge.
The Bench also stressed the limited nature of scrutiny at the stage of framing charges under Sections 227 and 228 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
At that stage, a court is required to examine whether the investigation material, witness statements and records disclose a prima facie case and raise suspicion against the accused. It is not required to weigh the evidence as though it were determining guilt after a completed trial.
The Supreme Court held that the Sessions Judge had evaluated the material before framing the Section 307 charge and that the High Court’s interference at the threshold was unwarranted.
The Supreme Court further observed that the High Court had overlooked Section 216 CrPC, which permits a court to alter or add to a charge at any time before judgment is pronounced.
If the evidence presented during trial does not establish the ingredients of Section 307 IPC, the trial court can alter the charge to Section 308 IPC or another appropriate lesser offence.
The availability of this statutory power was an additional reason why the charge should not have been reduced at the preliminary stage on the basis adopted by the High Court.
Allowing the appeal, the Supreme Court set aside the Rajasthan High Court’s April 1, 2025 order and restored the Sessions Court’s November 28, 2023 order framing charges, including the charge under Section 307 IPC against the principal accused.
The Bench expressly clarified that its observations were confined to deciding the appeal concerning the framing of charges. They must not influence the outcome or merits of the trial, which must be decided strictly on the evidence and material placed before the trial court.
Membership Required to Access Case Details & Order Copy
To view the complete Case Details and Download Order Copy, you must have an active membership. Please subscribe to continue.
