The Madhya Pradesh High Court has clarified that the absence of serious injury does not preclude the framing of charges under Section 307 IPC, reinforcing that the critical factor is the accused’s intention and the circumstances surrounding the act. This ruling provides crucial guidance for prosecutors and defense counsel navigating charges of attempt to murder in cases involving vehicular assaults and domestic disputes.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The dispute arises from a violent incident on 9 May 2019 at a marriage ceremony in village Sedra, Rajgarh, Madhya Pradesh. Rupesh Dangi, a government official, allegedly drove his Indigo car into his estranged wife Manisha Dangi and her three-month-old daughter, as well as Omprakash Dangi, who was representing Manisha in their divorce proceedings. Two FIRs were registered: Crime No. 122/2019 against Rupesh under Sections 279, 337, and later 307 IPC; and Crime No. 123/2019 against Omprakash and others under Sections 294, 323, 337, 506, and 307 IPC.
Procedural History
- 2019: FIRs registered under Sections 279 and 337 IPC; Section 307 IPC added later in both cases.
- 2020: Charges framed against Rupesh Dangi under Section 307 IPC in ST No. 28/2020; charges framed against Manisha Dangi under Section 307 IPC in ST No. 27/2020.
- 2022: High Court quashed charges against Manisha Dangi in MCRC No. 3249/2022.
- 2024: Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s quashing order, directing trial to proceed.
- 2024: Charges against Manisha Dangi were re-framed under Section 307 IPC.
- 2026: Both Rupesh and Manisha filed criminal revisions challenging the framing of charges under Section 307 IPC.
Relief Sought
The petitioners sought quashing of the charge framing orders under Section 307 IPC, arguing that the injuries were minor, the timing of the FIR was suspicious, and the allegations were retaliatory in nature. They contended that no prima facie case existed for an attempt to murder.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code requires proof of actual physical injury to frame charges, or whether the presence of intent and circumstances sufficient to cause death is sufficient to sustain a charge of attempt to murder.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
The petitioners relied on R. Prakash v. State of Karnataka, Bherulal Tank v. State of M.P., and Dilwar Balu Kurane v. State of Maharashtra to argue that the injuries sustained were minor and old (72 hours), rendering Section 307 inapplicable. They emphasized that the complainant had a history of filing malicious cases and that the addition of Section 307 was retaliatory. They contended that the prosecution failed to establish a prima facie case under the triple test for discharge under Section 227 CrPC.
For the Respondent/State
The State argued that the act of driving a motor vehicle at high speed into a person and an infant, in the context of a bitter marital dispute, demonstrated clear intention to cause death. The prosecution relied on the factual matrix - timing, location, vehicle use as a weapon, and prior hostility - to establish that the act met the threshold under Section 307 IPC, irrespective of injury severity.
The Court's Analysis
The Court undertook a detailed examination of Section 307 IPC, noting its two-part structure: one for acts causing no injury, and another for acts causing hurt. It held that injury is not a sine qua non for invoking Section 307. The Court emphasized that the critical inquiry is whether the accused acted with the intention or knowledge that, had death resulted, it would constitute murder.
"If any act is done with an intention or knowledge that, if assailant by that act causes death, then the assailant would be guilty of murder, then such act would certainly be punishable under Section 307 of IPC."
The Court then turned to the standards for framing charges under Section 227 CrPC, citing P. Vijayan v. State of Kerala and Sajjan Kumar v. CBI. It reiterated that at this stage, the court must not conduct a mini-trial or weigh evidence for conviction. Instead, it must determine whether the materials on record disclose a prima facie case based on face-value facts and broad probabilities.
The Court rejected the petitioners’ argument that the complainant’s criminal history or the delay in filing the FIR negated the charge. It held that such issues are matters of defense to be examined at trial, not grounds for discharge. The Court also noted that the use of a motor vehicle as a weapon in a crowded setting, against a child and an adult, inherently carries a high risk of death, satisfying the mens rea requirement under Section 307.
Finally, the Court dismissed the revision petitions, holding that the trial court had correctly applied the law in framing charges. It further directed the trial court to conduct the proceedings on a day-to-day basis, citing CBI v. Mir Usman to ensure expeditious justice in sensitive cases involving public servants.
The Verdict
The petitioners lost. The Court held that Section 307 IPC does not require proof of injury; the presence of intent or knowledge that death could result is sufficient to frame charges. The order framing charges against both Rupesh and Manisha Dangi was upheld, and the trial was directed to proceed on a day-to-day basis.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Injury Is Not a Prerequisite for Section 307 IPC
- Practitioners must now argue that attempt to murder under Section 307 IPC hinges on the accused’s state of mind and the objective circumstances, not the severity of injuries.
- Minor or delayed injuries do not automatically defeat a charge; the focus must be on the nature of the act and its potential lethality.
- Defense counsel should avoid relying solely on medical reports to seek discharge; instead, challenge the sufficiency of intent or the plausibility of the prosecution’s narrative.
Discharge Standards Remain Strictly Limited
- Courts must not engage in mini-trials at the discharge stage; the threshold is low: only a prima facie case must be disclosed.
- Even if the prosecution’s version appears improbable, if it is not inherently impossible or absurd, charges may be framed.
- Defense applications under Section 227 CrPC must focus on basic infirmities in the record, not contradictions or credibility issues reserved for trial.
Day-to-Day Trials Are Now Mandatory in Sensitive Cases
- Trials involving public servants, domestic violence, or allegations of attempted murder must be conducted expeditiously.
- Courts are directed to fix schedules in advance, avoid adjournments for advocate convenience, and impose costs or cancel bail for non-cooperation.
- Advocates must prepare for continuous hearings; strategic delays will be met with judicial sanctions.
