Surender Kumar v. State of Haryana
“Grievous Hurt Is Not Required for Attempt to Murder, but Late Prayer to Add Section 307 IPC Fails: Supreme Court Clarifies Law”
TL;DR
The Supreme Court dismissed a special leave petition by an assault victim who sought to alter the charge to Section 307 IPC (attempt to murder) after the prosecution witnesses had been examined. The Court clarified that the grievousness of the injury, or the possibility that it could have led to death, is not a necessary ingredient of Section 307, which turns on intention or knowledge coupled with an overt act. However, it upheld the rejection of the late application because no case of intention or knowledge had been raised at the investigation, cognizance or evidence stage and the medical certificates were available when the charge-sheet was filed. The Court made it clear that it is the trial court's prerogative to alter a charge at any time during the trial if there is sound and justifiable cause emerging from the evidence.
The Bottom Line
A victim cannot insist on a charge of attempt to murder merely because the injury was serious, and a court cannot refuse one merely because the injury was not dangerous to life. What matters is intention or knowledge. Here, the application was made late in the trial without any case of intention to kill having been raised earlier, so it was rejected, but the trial court retains the power to alter the charge at any time if the evidence justifies it.
Case Timeline
The journey from FIR to Supreme Court verdict
Supreme Court Dismisses SLP
The Supreme Court clarified the law on Section 307 IPC, dismissed the special leave petition for want of reasons to entertain it, and left the trial court free to alter the charge later if justified by evidence.
Supreme Court Dismisses SLP
The Supreme Court clarified the law on Section 307 IPC, dismissed the special leave petition for want of reasons to entertain it, and left the trial court free to alter the charge later if justified by evidence.
The Story
A dispute over waterlogging caused by the draining of rainwater led to an assault by the accused on the petitioner, his brother and his uncle. The petitioner and his brother sustained multiple injuries caused by armed assailants. An FIR was lodged under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 325 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 at Police Station Nissing, Karnal, and six accused were arrayed. Charges were framed and the trial commenced.
A neurosurgeon at a private hospital, who treated the injured, was examined as PW5. He deposed that the injury to the petitioner's brother, a fracture on the right parietal bone with underlying haemorrhagic contusion, could in his opinion have been dangerous to life. PW6, the Medical Officer of the Primary Health Centre, Sagga, Karnal, who examined the injured when they were brought to hospital right after the incident, said the gravity of the brother's injury should be left to the treating surgeon. During investigation, after the neurosurgeon's report was obtained, the accused moved for examination of the injuries by a Medical Board, of which PW6 was a member. The Board found the injuries grievous but not dangerous to life.
After the prosecution witnesses were examined, the petitioner applied (Annexure P8) to alter the charge to one under Section 307 IPC. The accused opposed it. The Judicial Magistrate First Class, Karnal dismissed the application, holding that the Medical Board report prevailed and so there was no cause to bring in Section 307. The Sessions Court dismissed a revision, noting that the Investigating Officer had initially registered the FIR under Section 307 and deleted it only after the Board examination, but also finding that the first informant had not alleged that the accused attacked with an intention to kill, and that two accused also suffered multiple injuries. The High Court, in a further revision, agreed with the Magistrate on the ground that the opinion of a neurosurgeon at a private hospital was superseded by the opinion of the Medical Board of the Government Medical College at Karnal. The petitioner then approached the Supreme Court by special leave petition.
Legal Issues
Click each question to reveal the Supreme Court's answer
Arguments
The battle of arguments before the Supreme Court
Petitioner
Vihaan Kumar
Section 307 should be added in view of the neurosurgeon's evidence
The petitioner, the first informant, applied to alter the charge to Section 307 IPC after the prosecution witnesses were examined. The neurosurgeon (PW5) had deposed that the injury to his brother, a fracture of the right parietal bone with haemorrhagic contusion, could have been dangerous to life. Before the Sessions Court it was specifically contended that the Investigating Officer had initially registered the FIR under Section 307 and deleted it only after the Medical Board examination sought by the accused.
Respondent
State of Haryana
Medical Board opinion prevails and no intention to kill alleged
The accused opposed the application to alter the charge. The Magistrate accepted that the Medical Board report, which found the injuries grievous but not dangerous to life, prevailed. The Sessions Court noted the absence of any allegation by the first informant of an attempt to kill, and that two accused also suffered multiple injuries. The High Court held the private hospital neurosurgeon's opinion was superseded by the opinion of the Medical Board of the Government Medical College at Karnal. The judgment records these reasons as those of the courts below rather than detailed oral submissions before the Supreme Court.
Court's Analysis
How the Court reasoned its decision
The Court first disapproved of the approach of the courts below: the grievousness of the injuries or the possibility that they could have caused death is not a necessary ingredient of Section 307 (paragraph 7). Section 307 has two limbs concerning punishment but only one concerning culpability, which is the doing of an act with such intention or knowledge, and in such circumstances, that if death were caused the accused would be guilty of murder; hurt, grievous or simple, is not a precondition (paragraph 8). It then reviewed authorities: State of Madhya Pradesh v. Kashiram (intent coupled with some overt act is sufficient, and a simple or minor injury does not by itself rule out Section 307), Chimanbhai Jagabhai Patel v. State of Gujarat (the ingredients of the offence), Pasupuleti Siva Ramakrishna Rao v. State of Andhra Pradesh (the two punishment limbs), State of M.P. v. Saleem alias Chamaru (no bodily injury capable of causing death is necessary), and State of M.P. v. Kanha alias Omprakash and Jage Ram v. State of Haryana (the absence of a fatal injury does not dislodge Section 307, but the nature or gravity of the injury and the weapon used can lead to an inference of intent and knowledge) (paragraphs 9 and 10). Turning to the facts, the Court held that the nature of the hurt, though relevant, cannot alone yield a finding of attempt to murder, and the Sessions Court finding that no intention or knowledge was alleged could justify not bringing in Section 307 (paragraph 11). Both medical certificates were available at the time of the charge-sheet, the injured did not complain at cognizance about the absence of Section 307, no case of intention or knowledge was raised at the early stages or while evidence was being led, and so the late application could not be entertained (paragraph 12). The SLP was dismissed, but the Court kept the trial court's power to alter the charge at any time open (paragraph 13).
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
Para 7
Corrects the idea that Section 307 depends on how serious the injury was.
Hurt, grievous or simple, is not a precondition to attract Section 307
Para 8
Section 307 can apply even without any injury; hurt only enhances the punishment.
The nature of the hurt on which the courts laboured in the impugned orders, according to us, though relevant cannot on that sole basis result in a finding of attempt to murder.
Para 11
Injury gravity is relevant evidence of intention but not conclusive either way.
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
Para 12
The reason the belated application was held unjustified.
it is the Court’s prerogative to alter the charge at any time when the trial is continuing, provided there is sound and justifiable cause, as emanating from the evidence led before court
Para 13
The door remains open for the trial court to add Section 307 if evidence justifies it.
The Verdict
Relief Granted
No relief to the petitioner on the application to add Section 307 IPC at this stage; the legal position on Section 307 was clarified and the trial court retains discretion to alter the charge later.
Directions Issued
- The Special Leave Petition is dismissed as there was no reason to entertain it.
- It is clarified that the Court may alter the charge at any time while the trial is continuing, provided there is sound and justifiable cause emanating from the evidence led.
- Pending applications, if any, stand rejected.
Key Legal Principles Established
Section 307 IPC turns on the intention or knowledge with which an act is done, together with an overt act; grievous or any hurt is not a precondition.
The absence of a fatal or grievous injury does not exclude Section 307, but the nature of the injury and the weapon used can support an inference of intention or knowledge.
Intention to kill or knowledge that death will occur is a question of fact to be gathered from the circumstances of each case.
The nature of the hurt, though relevant, cannot be the sole basis for finding that an attempt to murder was committed.
A belated application to add Section 307, where no case of intention or knowledge was raised at investigation, cognizance or evidence, may be rejected.
A trial court may alter a charge at any time during the trial if there is sound and justifiable cause arising from the evidence.
Key Takeaways
What different people should know from this case
- A charge of attempt to murder does not depend only on how serious the injury is; it depends on the intention or knowledge of the attacker.
- If you are a victim, raise concerns about the charges early, when the charge-sheet is filed or cognizance is taken, instead of late in the trial.
- A medical board opinion that injuries were not dangerous to life does not by itself rule out attempt to murder.
- Even when an application to add a charge is rejected, the trial court can still alter the charge later if the evidence justifies it.
- The nature of the weapon and the circumstances of the attack can show whether the attacker meant to kill.
Legal Framework
Applicable laws and provisions
Statutory Provisions
Section 307
Indian Penal Code, 1860
“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, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine; and if hurt is caused to any person by such act, the offender shall be liable either to imprisonment for life, or to such punishment as is hereinbefore mentioned.”
Relevance: The provision the petitioner wanted added to the charges; the Court explained its two punishment limbs and the single culpability test.
Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 325 and 506
Indian Penal Code, 1860
“Rioting, rioting armed with a deadly weapon, liability for acts of an unlawful assembly, voluntarily causing hurt, voluntarily causing grievous hurt, and criminal intimidation.”
Relevance: The sections under which the FIR was lodged and the charges framed against the six accused.
Related Cases & Precedents
State of Madhya Pradesh v. Kashiram and Others
followed(2009) 4 SCC 26
To justify a conviction under Section 307 it is sufficient if there is intent coupled with some overt act; an injury capable of causing death is not essential.
Chimanbhai Jagabhai Patel v. State of Gujarat and Another
followed(2009) 11 SCC 273
Set out the ingredients of Section 307: an overt act, the intention or knowledge, and no excuse for incurring the risk of causing death or injury.
Pasupuleti Siva Ramakrishna Rao v. State of Andhra Pradesh and Others
followed(2014) 5 SCC 369
Differentiated the two punishment limbs of Section 307.
State of M.P. v. Saleem alias Chamaru and Another
followed(2005) 5 SCC 554
No bodily injury capable of causing death is necessary to sustain a Section 307 conviction; intention or knowledge is discerned from the circumstances.
State of Madhya Pradesh v. Kanha alias Omprakash
followed(2019) 3 SCC 605
The absence of a fatal injury does not dislodge Section 307; the nature of injury and weapon can show intent and knowledge.
Jage Ram and Others v. State of Haryana
followed(2015) 11 SCC 366
Held with Kanha that the nature or gravity of the injury and the weapon used may lead to an inference of intent and knowledge.
Watch & Learn
Video explanations in multiple languages
Kannada
Surender Kumar v. State of Haryana - Kannada Explanation
Tamil
Surender Kumar v. State of Haryana - Tamil Explanation
Telugu
Surender Kumar v. State of Haryana - Telugu Explanation
Hindi
Surender Kumar v. State of Haryana - Hindi Explanation
English
Surender Kumar v. State of Haryana - English Explanation
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.