Section 307 IPC: Intention Or Knowledge, Not Just Injury, Determines Attempt To Murder Charge, Says Supreme Court

The Supreme Court has held that for a conviction under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) [now Section 109 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS)], which deals with attempt to murder, it is not necessary that the victim must have suffered an injury capable of causing death, or even simple hurt. The key question is whether the act was committed with the requisite intention or knowledge that it could result in death, Court emphasised.

A Bench of Justices J B Pardiwala and K Vinod Chandran said the nature of the injury or the weapon used are only factors to be considered while determining such intention or knowledge.

Court made the observation while dismissing a plea filed by Surender Kumar, who had sought alteration of the charge in the case to include Section 307 of the IPC.

When can a charge be altered to Section 307 IPC?

Court said a trial court has the prerogative to alter charges at any stage of the trial, provided there is a sound and justifiable basis for doing so in the evidence led before it.

However, in Kumar's case, the application seeking alteration of the charge was made at a late stage of the trial, after substantial proceedings had already taken place. Court noted that no allegation of an intention or knowledge attracting Section 307 had been raised at the initial stage, when cognizance was taken, or during the recording of evidence.

"A late application to alter the charge cannot be entertained if there is no foundation for it in the evidence or the circumstances of the case," the Bench said.

Waterlogging dispute led to assault

The case arose from a dispute over waterlogging caused by the draining of rainwater, which led to an assault on the petitioner, his brother and uncle by the accused.

The petitioner and his brother sustained multiple injuries allegedly caused by armed assailants. An FIR was subsequently registered at Police Station Nissing, Karnal, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 325 and 506 of the IPC [Sections 191(2), 191(3), 190, 115(2), 117(2) and 351(2) of the BNS]. Six accused persons were arrayed in the case, charges were framed and the trial commenced.

During the investigation, medical reports concerning the injuries were obtained. The petitioner also obtained an injury report from a private neurosurgeon, following which the accused sought examination of the injuries by a Medical Board.

The Medical Board opined that although the injuries were grievous, they did not pose any danger to life.

After the prosecution witnesses had been examined, an application was moved seeking alteration of the charge to include Section 307 IPC. The Judicial Magistrate First Class, Karnal, dismissed the application, holding that the Medical Board's report would prevail and that there was no basis to introduce Section 307.

A revision petition before the sessions court also failed.

The sessions court found that the first informant, Kumar, had not alleged that the accused attacked them with an intention to kill. It also noted that the doctor who examined the injured victims and the accused had found that two of the accused had themselves suffered multiple injuries.

The high court, in a revision petition, agreed with the Magistrate's decision, noting that the opinion of the private neurosurgeon was superseded by the Medical Board constituted at Government Medical College, Karnal.

Injury capable of causing death not necessary for Section 307 IPC

Considering the challenge, the Supreme Court said the courts below had focused extensively on the nature of the injuries, but this alone could not determine whether Section 307 was attracted.

"We are of the opinion that the grievousness of the injuries or the possibility of injury which could have led to death, is not a necessary ingredient to attract Section 307 of the IPC," the Bench said.

Court said the nature of the hurt, though relevant, cannot by itself lead to a finding of attempt to murder.

"But the finding of the sessions court that there is no intention or knowledge alleged, could be taken as a reason or justification for not bringing in Section 307," it said.

The Bench also noted that both medical certificates were available when the charge sheet was filed, as they had been obtained during the investigation. Yet, at the time of taking cognizance, the injured victim did not complain that Section 307 had not been included in the charge sheet.

Court said the injured persons were conscious of the injuries they had suffered and were aware of the manner in which the alleged acts had been committed.

"No such case of an intention or knowledge as would attract Section 307 having been raised at the initial stage or at the stage of cognizance or when the evidence was being led; which the investigation also did not detect, the application made at the later stage, cannot be entertained," the Bench said.

The Supreme Court accordingly found no reason to interfere with the orders of the courts below and dismissed the special leave petition.

The Bench, however, clarified that a court can alter a charge at any stage while the trial is continuing, provided there is a sound and justifiable cause for doing so, based on the evidence led before the court.

Case Title: Surender Kumar Vs State of Haryana & Ors

Bench: Justice J B Pardiwala and K Vinod Chandran

Date of Judgment: September 08, 2026