The Supreme Court has held that the seriousness of a Section 307 IPC Injury is not decisive for an attempt-to-murder charge. The Court said the severity of the injury is not a necessary ingredient for invoking Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC).
A bench of Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice K. Vinod Chandran clarified the requirements of the provision. The Court stressed the importance of the intention or knowledge behind the act.
The bench observed:
“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.”
The Court made the observation while dismissing a plea filed by the victim’s brother. He sought to add Section 307 IPC against the accused after the trial had significantly progressed.
Section 307 Initially Included In FIR
According to the petitioner, the police initially registered the FIR under Section 307 IPC.
The accused later requested an examination by the Medical Board. Following the examination, the authorities deleted Section 307 from the case.
The petitioner then approached the Magistrate and sought alteration of the charge to include Section 307 IPC. The case also involved charges under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 325 and 506 IPC.
The Magistrate rejected the application.
The petitioner challenged that decision before the Sessions Court through a revision petition. The Sessions Court also declined to grant relief.
He thereafter approached the High Court. The High Court refused to interfere with the findings of the trial courts.
The victim’s brother subsequently filed a special leave petition before the Supreme Court.
Petitioner Relies On Grievous Injury
Before the Supreme Court, the petitioner primarily relied on the seriousness of the victim’s injury.
He argued that the accused had allegedly caused an injury serious enough to result in death.
The Supreme Court rejected the contention that grievous injury alone could attract Section 307 IPC.
The Court clarified that simple or grievous hurt is not a precondition for invoking the provision. Instead, courts must examine the intention or knowledge behind the act.
If an act causes hurt, Section 307 may apply when the accused possesses the required intention or knowledge. The nature of the injury may be simple or grievous.
Intention And Overt Act Are Relevant
The Supreme Court referred to its 2009 judgment in State of Madhya Pradesh v. Kashiram and Others.
The Court quoted the earlier ruling:
“…to justify the conviction under Section 307, it would be sufficient if there is intent coupled with some overt act in execution thereof. It is not essential that there should be a bodily injury capable of causing death or even an injury in the nature of simple hurt.”
The ruling makes the accused’s intention or knowledge central to the application of Section 307 IPC. The seriousness of the resulting injury does not independently determine whether the provision applies.
Therefore, a Section 307 IPC Injury need not necessarily be grievous or capable of causing death. The relevant question concerns the intention or knowledge accompanying the act.
Court Rejects Plea Raised At Later Stage
The Supreme Court also considered when the petitioner sought to introduce the Section 307 IPC charge.
The bench noted that neither the victim nor the petitioner had initially raised the required element of intention or knowledge.
They did not raise it at the stage of cognizance or while the court recorded evidence. The investigation also did not detect such circumstances.
The Court therefore declined to permit the petitioner to raise the issue at a later stage.
It observed:
“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 and hence, the finding leading to rejection of incorporation of Section 307, is justified.”
Accordingly, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition and upheld the refusal to incorporate Section 307 IPC at the later stage.
