The Gujarat High Court has reaffirmed that conviction under Section 307 IPC hinges on proving the accused’s specific intention or knowledge that their act was likely to cause death - not merely the severity of the injury inflicted. This judgment reinforces the doctrinal boundary between grievous hurt and attempted murder, emphasizing that the law demands more than physical harm to establish criminal intent.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The respondents were charged with attempt to murder under Section 307 read with Sections 114 and 34 of the IPC for assaulting Raman Vaghela with sticks, resulting in a fracture to his leg. The prosecution alleged the motive was to teach him a lesson for maintaining relations with the daughter of the first accused. The FIR was lodged by Shantilal Vaghela (PW.1), and ten witnesses were examined alongside 16 documents.
Procedural History
- 2000: Sessions Case No. 239 of 2000 initiated against the respondents
- 2004: Additional Sessions Judge, Surat, acquitted respondents of Section 307 IPC but convicted them under Section 324 IPC (voluntarily causing hurt)
- 2005: State filed criminal appeal before the Gujarat High Court challenging the acquittal under Section 307
- 2026: Appeal heard and dismissed by the High Court
Relief Sought
The State sought reversal of the acquittal under Section 307 IPC and demanded conviction and sentencing for attempt to murder. The respondents sought dismissal of the appeal, citing both evidentiary insufficiency and a subsequent compromise between the parties.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether the prosecution established, beyond reasonable doubt, that the respondents acted with the intention to cause death or with knowledge that their act was likely to cause death, as required under Section 307 IPC, or whether the injuries sustained were consistent only with Section 324 IPC.
Arguments Presented
For the Appellant
The Additional Public Prosecutor argued that the nature of the assault - using sticks to inflict a fracture - demonstrated an intention to cause death. He contended that the trial court erred in ignoring the testimonies of eyewitnesses and the medical evidence, which together showed a clear intent to kill. He further asserted that the grant of probation was an abuse of judicial discretion, as Section 307 is a serious non-bailable offence.
For the Respondent
Counsel for the accused argued that the injuries were not life-threatening, no repeated blows were delivered, and the weapon used was not inherently lethal. He relied on Supreme Court precedents holding that Section 307 requires proof of mens rea, not merely the outcome. He also highlighted the compromise affidavit filed by the injured, which supported the trial court’s finding that the incident did not rise to the level of attempted murder.
The Court's Analysis
The Court emphasized that Section 307 IPC is not triggered by the mere occurrence of grievous injury. The prosecution must prove that the accused acted with the intention to cause death or with knowledge that the act was likely to cause death. The Court examined the Supreme Court’s rulings in Hari Singh v. Sukhbir Singh, Kundan Singh v. State of Punjab, Merambhai Punjabhai Khachar v. State of Gujarat, and Ramesh v. State of U.P., all of which held that conviction under Section 307 cannot rest on the severity of injury alone.
"The proof of grievous or life threatening hurt is not sine-qua-none. The intention of the accused can be gathered from the actual injury, nature of the weapon used, manner in which the incident took place, motive for the crime, severity of the blow, the part of body where the injuries inflicted."
The Court noted that the injury - a single fracture to the leg - was not inflicted on vital organs, and there was no evidence of repeated strikes or use of a deadly weapon. The absence of any intent to strike at life-threatening areas, combined with the compromise affidavit, supported the trial court’s conclusion. The Court further held that the trial judge’s reasoning was neither perverse nor arbitrary, and therefore, appellate interference was unwarranted.
The Verdict
The State’s appeal was dismissed. The Court upheld the acquittal under Section 307 IPC and affirmed the conviction under Section 324 IPC. It held that the intention to cause death was not established, and the grant of probation was not an error of law given the compromise between the parties.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Intention, Not Injury, Is the Key
- Practitioners must focus on mens rea when prosecuting or defending Section 307 cases
- A fracture or even a deep wound does not automatically satisfy the threshold for attempt to murder
- Evidence must show the accused targeted vital areas, used lethal weapons, or acted with extreme aggression
Compromise Can Influence Sentencing, Not Conviction
- While compromise does not negate criminal liability, it may justify probation under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act
- Courts may consider settlement as a factor in sentencing, especially where the offence is not heinous
- Prosecutors should not rely on compromise to justify a Section 307 charge
Trial Courts’ Acquittals Are Presumed Correct
- Appellate courts must not substitute their view unless the acquittal is "perverse" or "unreasoned"
- The presumption of innocence is strengthened by an acquittal
- Mere disagreement with the trial court’s assessment of evidence is insufficient grounds for reversal
