Abhishek v. State of Rajasthan
“Injury on a Non-Vital Part Does Not Defeat Section 307: Supreme Court Restores Attempt-to-Murder Charge Framed Over a Tractor and Axe Attack”
TL;DR
The Supreme Court set aside a Rajasthan High Court order that had quashed a charge of attempt to murder under Section 307 IPC against one accused and directed a charge under Section 308 IPC (attempt to commit culpable homicide) instead, merely because the injuries on the victims were on non-vital parts such as the arm and wrist. The Court held that the determinative question under Section 307 is intention or knowledge, not the nature or site of the injury, and that at the stage of framing charge a court need not hold a mini-trial. Since the materials showed a tractor driven repeatedly at the family and an axe assault aimed at the head, the High Court erred in making a summary assessment of the injuries. The Sessions Court's order framing charge under Section 307 was restored, the trial court was told that it can alter the charge under Section 216 CrPC if evidence so warrants, and the trial must proceed in accordance with law.
The Bottom Line
Hurting someone on the arm instead of the head does not by itself turn attempted murder into a lesser offence. The Supreme Court ruled that, at the charge-framing stage, the question is whether the material shows the intention or knowledge needed for Section 307 IPC, such as driving a tractor at people and attacking with axes, not whether the wounds were on a vital part. The High Court was wrong to downgrade the charge at the threshold, because the trial court can always alter the charge later under Section 216 CrPC if the evidence falls short. The case now goes back for trial on the original charge.
Case Timeline
The journey from FIR to Supreme Court verdict
Incident in Agricultural Field
Respondent no. 2 allegedly drove a tractor at high speed towards the appellant and his family, hitting the appellant's mother, after which the accused allegedly attacked the appellant and his father with axes.
Incident in Agricultural Field
Respondent no. 2 allegedly drove a tractor at high speed towards the appellant and his family, hitting the appellant's mother, after which the accused allegedly attacked the appellant and his father with axes.
FIR Registered
FIR No. 119 of 2020 was registered at Police Station Merta Road, Nagaur, under Sections 143, 307, 323, 341 and 447 IPC.
FIR Registered
FIR No. 119 of 2020 was registered at Police Station Merta Road, Nagaur, under Sections 143, 307, 323, 341 and 447 IPC.
Charge-Sheet Filed
Charge-sheet No. 36 was submitted against the accused under Sections 447, 323, 324 and 326 read with Section 34 and Section 307 IPC.
Charge-Sheet Filed
Charge-sheet No. 36 was submitted against the accused under Sections 447, 323, 324 and 326 read with Section 34 and Section 307 IPC.
Sessions Court Frames Charge
The Additional Sessions Judge, Merta, framed charge under Section 307 IPC (along with other sections) against respondent no. 2 in Session Case No. 43 of 2021.
Sessions Court Frames Charge
The Additional Sessions Judge, Merta, framed charge under Section 307 IPC (along with other sections) against respondent no. 2 in Session Case No. 43 of 2021.
High Court Downgrades Charge
The Rajasthan High Court at Jodhpur partly allowed the revision petition, quashed the Section 307 IPC charge and directed a charge under Section 308 IPC.
High Court Downgrades Charge
The Rajasthan High Court at Jodhpur partly allowed the revision petition, quashed the Section 307 IPC charge and directed a charge under Section 308 IPC.
Supreme Court Restores Section 307 Charge
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court order and restored the Sessions Court's order framing the charge under Section 307 IPC.
Supreme Court Restores Section 307 Charge
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court order and restored the Sessions Court's order framing the charge under Section 307 IPC.
The Story
On 26 November 2020, an incident took place in the agricultural field of the appellant, Abhishek, in Village Polas, Tehsil Degana, District Nagaur, Rajasthan. According to the prosecution, while the appellant was pruning Khejri trees, respondent no. 2 and other family members, including respondent nos. 3 and 4, entered the field driving a tractor at high speed and repeatedly drove it towards the appellant and his family in an attempt to run them over, striking the appellant's mother, Indra Devi, on the waist and causing her to fall.
The accused then allegedly assaulted the appellant and his family with sharp-edged agricultural implements (kashi/axes). The appellant sustained an incised wound measuring 7 cm x 3 cm x bone-deep on the left arm. His father, Dilip Kumar, suffered two incised injuries, including a bone-deep wound of 7 cm x 3 cm over the right wrist and a muscle-deep wound of 6 cm x 3 cm on the forearm. His mother sustained an abrasion.
FIR No. 119 of 2020 was registered on 27 November 2020 at Police Station Merta Road, Nagaur, under Sections 143, 307, 323, 341 and 447 IPC. After investigation, Charge-sheet No. 36 dated 17 July 2021 was filed, and the case was committed to the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Merta (Session Case No. 43 of 2021). By order dated 28 November 2023, the Sessions Judge framed charges against respondent no. 2 under Sections 447, 323, 324 and 326 read with Section 34 and Section 307 IPC, and against the others under Sections 447, 323, 324 and 326 read with Section 34 IPC.
The accused filed S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 133 of 2024 before the High Court of Rajasthan at Jodhpur. By order dated 1 April 2025, the High Court held that the injuries were on non-vital parts, that the mother suffered only abrasions, and that an offence under Section 307 IPC was not made out; at the most the case would not go beyond Section 308 IPC. It quashed the Section 307 charge and directed the trial court to frame a charge under Section 308 IPC. The complainant appealed to the Supreme Court.
Legal Issues
Click each question to reveal the Supreme Court's answer
Arguments
The battle of arguments before the Supreme Court
Petitioner
Vihaan Kumar
Intention and knowledge must be gathered from the totality of circumstances
The appellant argued that, to constitute an offence under Section 307 IPC, it is not essential that a bodily injury capable of causing death be actually inflicted, and that intention or knowledge must be gathered from the nature of weapons, prior enmity and manner of attack rather than the seat or gravity of wounds.
Tractor and axes were inherently dangerous; wounds were defensive
The respondents allegedly arrived with axes and a tractor, driven at high speed and repeatedly manoeuvred at the family, and the wounds on the arms and shoulders were suffered while the appellant and his father were defending against axe blows aimed at their heads. At the charge stage, the court examines only a prima facie case and conducts no mini-trial.
Respondent
State of Haryana
State supported the appellant
The State argued that the High Court erred in directing a charge only under Section 308 IPC, relying on State of Maharashtra v. Balram Bama Patil. It said the material showed deliberate use of a tractor as a lethal instrument and an armed assault with axes later recovered under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, that the incised wounds were the result of defensive action to shield the head, and that respondent no. 2 had past criminal antecedents.
Accused did not appear
None appeared on behalf of respondent nos. 2 to 4, the accused, despite service of notice having been completed. The High Court's reasoning that the injuries were on non-vital parts forms their case as recorded in the impugned order.
Court's Analysis
How the Court reasoned its decision
The Court restated the settled position under Section 307 IPC, relying on Balram Bama Patil, Saleem and Jage Ram, and added the recent decision in Surender Kumar v. State of Haryana (2026 SCC OnLine SC 1912), that the requisite intention or knowledge coupled with an overt act is the determining factor and an injury on a non-vital part does not exclude the section. It then listed the material: the tractor driven at high speed and steered repeatedly towards the family, the armed axe assault, the medico-legal certificates of deep bone-deep and muscle-deep incised wounds, and the statement that the accused attacked heads with axes and the blows struck the shoulders when arms were raised to protect the head. On that material, the High Court's approach was a summary and technical assessment. The Court also noted that Section 216 CrPC empowers the trial court to alter the charge if evidence later so demands.
The determinative question is the intention or knowledge, as the case may be, and not the nature of the injury.
Para 8
Reproduced from Jage Ram (quoting Saleem), this sentence forms the core legal test applied by the Court.
the Court is not required to hold a mini-trial
Para 10
Limits the depth of scrutiny of evidence when framing charges under Sections 227 and 228 CrPC.
the High Court committed an error in conducting a summary and technical assessment of the injuries
Para 12
Records the Court's specific criticism of the High Court's reasoning.
The Verdict
Relief Granted
The attempt-to-murder charge against respondent no. 2 is restored and the trial will proceed.
Directions Issued
- The judgment and order dated 01.04.2025 of the High Court of Rajasthan at Jodhpur in S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 133 of 2024 is set aside.
- The order dated 28.11.2023 of the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Merta, in Session Case No. 43 of 2021 framing charge, inter alia, under Section 307 IPC against respondent no. 2 is restored.
- The observations in the judgment are confined to the appeal and shall not influence the outcome or merits of the trial, which shall be decided strictly on the evidence.
- The Trial Court shall proceed with the trial in accordance with law.
- Pending applications stand disposed of.
Key Legal Principles Established
For Section 307 IPC, it is not essential that a fatal or life-threatening injury is actually inflicted.
The determinative question is the accused's intention or knowledge, deduced from the totality of circumstances, not the nature or site of the injury.
Intention can be gathered from the weapons used, persistence of the assault, prior animosity and the manner of the attack.
At the stage of framing charge, courts examine only whether a prima facie case or strong suspicion exists and do not hold a mini-trial.
Section 216 CrPC allows the trial court to alter or amend the charge before judgment, making premature downgrading unnecessary.
Key Takeaways
What different people should know from this case
- An attack can still be charged as attempt to murder even if the injuries are on the arm or wrist and the victim survives, if the facts show an intention to kill.
- Courts decide whether to frame a serious charge on the basis of the investigation material, not a full trial.
- Even after a charge is framed, the trial court can change it later if the evidence at trial does not support it.
- The Supreme Court's observations do not decide guilt; the accused remains entitled to a fair trial on the evidence.
Legal Framework
Applicable laws and provisions
Statutory Provisions
Section 307
Indian Penal Code, 1860
“Attempt to murder: whoever does any act with such intention or knowledge, and under such circumstances that, if he by that act caused death, he would be guilty of murder, is punishable under this section.”
Relevance: The charge restored by the Court against respondent no. 2; the Court emphasised intention or knowledge over the nature of injury.
Section 308
Indian Penal Code, 1860
“Attempt to commit culpable homicide.”
Relevance: The High Court directed a charge under this section instead of Section 307; the Supreme Court set that direction aside.
Sections 227, 228 and 216
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
“Sections 227 and 228 deal with discharge and framing of charge in sessions cases; Section 216 empowers the court to alter or add to any charge at any time before judgment is pronounced.”
Relevance: The Court applied Sections 227 and 228 to hold that no mini-trial is required, and relied on Section 216 to show that the charge can be altered after evidence.
Related Cases & Precedents
State of Maharashtra v. Balram Bama Patil
followed(1983) 2 SCC 28
Held that it is not essential that a bodily injury capable of causing death be inflicted to justify a conviction under Section 307 IPC.
State of Madhya Pradesh v. Saleem alias Chamaru
followed(2005) 5 SCC 554
Held that the determinative question under Section 307 is intention or knowledge and not the nature of the injury.
Jage Ram v. State of Haryana
followed(2015) 11 SCC 366
Reproduced the principles on intention under Section 307 IPC; the relevant paragraph was extracted in the judgment.
Surender Kumar v. State of Haryana
followed2026 SCC OnLine SC 1912
Recently reiterated that injury on a non-vital part does not by itself exclude Section 307 IPC.
Watch & Learn
Video explanations in multiple languages
Frequently Asked Questions
Explore Related Cases
More case summaries on similar legal topics
Vihaan Kumar v. State of Haryana
2025 INSC 162
The Case That Made Silence During Arrest Unconstitutional
Shajan Skaria v. State of Kerala
2024 INSC 625
When Criticism of a Public Figure Doesn't Become a Caste Atrocity
Just Rights for Children v. S. Harish
2024 INSC 714
Watching Child Pornography is NOT Just "Moral Decay" — It's a Serious Crime
Bhuwan Mohan Singh v. Meena
(2015) 6 SCC 353
Justice Delayed is Justice Denied - The Call for Swift Maintenance Orders
DISCLAIMER: This case summary is for educational and informational purposes only. It does not constitute legal advice. For advice on your specific situation, please consult a qualified advocate. JurisOptima is not responsible for any actions taken based on this information.
Facing aSimilar Situation?
Our advocates can help you understand how this judgment applies to your case.