IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH JUDGMENT JUDGMENT OPERATIVE PART Uploaded on RESERVED ON PRONOUNCED ON PRONOUNCED OR FULL

30.01.2026 18.02.2026 FULL PRO- 18.02.2026 NOUNCED Neeraj Verma ... Petitioner VS.

State of Punjab and another ... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA Present: Mr. Rajesh Bhateja, Advocate for the petitioner.

Ms. Pooja Nayar Sharma, DAG, Punjab.

****

ANOOP CHITKARA, J.

FIR No. Dated Police Station Sections

177 21.07.2025 Mandi Gobindgarh 115(2), 126(2), 351(2), 238, 109 & 117(2) BNS 2023

1. Challenging the order dated 05.01.2026 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Fatehgarh Sahib, vide which the petitioner was charged under Section 109 BNS, petitioner has come up before this Court by filing the present criminal revision petition.

2. I have heard counsel for the petitioner as well as State counsel Ms. Pooja Nayar Sharma and gone through the pleadings and its analysis would lead to the following outcome. Vide impugned order dated January 05, 2026, learned Sessions Judge, Fatehgarh Sahib framed charges for commission of offence punishable under Section 109, 115(2),126(2), 351(2), 238 & 117(2) BNS 2023.

3. Applicant’s grievance is against the charges framed under Section 109 BNS (corresponds to Section 307 IPC) i.e. attempt to murder. Section 100 of BNS 2023 defines culpable homicide and Section 101 BNS defines the situation in which culpable homicide amounts to murder. The corresponding Section for culpable homicide when it was attempted is punishable under Section 110 BNS and the corresponding Section for murder if attempted is punishable under Section 109 BNS 2023. Thus, if the person had died due to such an attack then it would be attempt to murder, but if he had not died due to such attack and then it would be either attempt to murder, or attempt to culpable homicide or other assaults as defined in the BNS 2023. The limited question before this Court is whether the allegations which were investigated by the investigator and the victim who was medically examined would the nature of injury is such and intention to cause such injury coupled with the weapon would make out a case for attempt to murder or grievous hurt or attempt to cause culpable homicide punishable under Section 109 BNS 2023.

4. The learned Sessions Judge while framing charges explicitly observed that at that time the petitioner-accused was having a wooden stick fitted with sharp edged weapon with which he had hit on head of the complainant. The FIR dated 21.07.2025 is Annexure P1 which mentions about injury being inflicted with wooden stick handled fitted with sharp iron object. In addition to that it is also mentioned that to save himself, victim used his hands and in the process, received injuries on the hands. Doctor corroborated injuries on the head. Counsel for the petitioner submits that there is no incised wound on the head but there were three injuries which were with blunt weapon, which would not make out a case for attempt to murder.

5. An analysis of the above would lead to the following outcome.

6. It is not that every injury on any vital portion would be attempt to murder. Suppose a light slap is given on the head or a punch given by a child or somebody who has less power, certainly it would not be an attempt to murder but similarly if the slap or punch is given by a body builder or a person who has very strong hands of his strong fist upon a person who is feeble, it would depend upon the force used and the injuries suffered. Similarly if somebody fires upon a person and the bullet misses the head, in such a situation no injury is caused but it does not mean that because no injury was caused, it would not constitute an offence under Section 109 BNS 2023. Thus, all the cumulative facts i.e. nature of allegations, injury received, the motive behind it and the corroboration by the medical and other evidence have to be analysed to come to the conclusion, what prima facie case is made out. In the present c