Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!

Scanned Judgements…!

Checking relevance for State Of Maharashtra VS Kashirao...

State Of Maharashtra VS Kashirao - 2003 6 Supreme 293 : Under Section 307 IPC, a major deviation from the common object of an unlawful assembly (FIS - First Information Sheet/First Information Statement) is not required for conviction under Section 307/149 IPC. The court held that even if the initial intent was to kill PW-1, the fact that all accused chased and assaulted the deceased constitutes a case of ''''transfer of malice'''' under Section 301 IPC, which supports liability under Section 149 IPC. The nature of the attack, weapons used (sword, axe, lathis), and conduct of the accused before, during, and after the incident demonstrate a common object of violence likely to cause death. Thus, the deviation from the original intended victim does not negate liability under Section 149 IPC when the act was part of a shared unlawful assembly with a common object of causing death or serious injury. The essential ingredients of Section 307 IPC—intention to cause death or bodily injury likely to cause death—are satisfied by the use of deadly weapons, manner of assault, and injuries sustained, regardless of whether the intended victim was different.Checking relevance for Bappa Alias Bapu VS State Of Maharashtra...

Checking relevance for Surjit Singh VS Nahara Ram...

Checking relevance for Ramesh Kumar @ Babla VS State of Punjab...

Checking relevance for Surinder Singh VS State (Union Territory of Chandigarh)...

Checking relevance for Girija Shankar VS State Of U. P. ...

Checking relevance for Ramesh VS State Of U. P. ...

Checking relevance for Pradeep S/o. Narayanankutty VS State of Kerala, Represented by Public Prosecutor...

Checking relevance for Bhalla Ram S/o Farsa Ram VS State Of Rajasthan...

Checking relevance for Budan Murmu @ Burhan Murmu, Son of Chhotu Murmu vs State of Jharkhand...

Budan Murmu @ Burhan Murmu, Son of Chhotu Murmu vs State of Jharkhand - 2025 Supreme(Online)(Jhk) 2327 : In the context of Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code (attempted murder), a major deviation from the ingredients of the offense occurs when the injuries inflicted do not indicate a likelihood of death, and thus fail to establish the required intent to cause death. The court held that the trial court''''s conviction under Section 307 was not supported by evidence of such intent, and that the nature of the injuries—characterized as non-grievous—corroborated only a lesser offense under Section 324 (voluntarily causing hurt) or Section 323 (simple hurt). Therefore, a conviction under Section 307 is not sustainable if the injuries and circumstances do not demonstrate that death was likely to result, constituting a major deviation from the essential elements of the offense.Checking relevance for Sukhjeet Singh VS State of Punjab...

Checking relevance for Pinnelli Ramakrishna Reddy VS State of Andhra Pradesh...

Checking relevance for Pragada Raminaidu vs State Of A.P....

Pragada Raminaidu vs State Of A.P. - 2025 Supreme(Online)(AP) 6745 : The court held that there was a major deviation from Section 307 IPC (attempted murder) in the conviction, as the evidence did not establish intent to kill. The conviction was accordingly modified to Section 324 IPC (voluntarily causing hurt), which is a lesser offense. The absence of intent to murder under Section 307 IPC was deemed evident, leading to the invalidation of the higher charge and the upholding of the conviction under Section 324 IPC based on sufficient evidence of causing injuries.Checking relevance for Pareshwar Satnami, S/o Eyoram Satnami VS State of Chhattisgarh, Through the District Magistrate, Raigarh, District-Raigarh (C. G. )...

Checking relevance for State Of Punjab VS Teja Singh...

Checking relevance for Om Prakash VS State Of Punjab...

Om Prakash VS State Of Punjab - 1961 0 Supreme(SC) 205 : Under Section 307, I.P.C., an attempt to commit murder is established when a person has the intention to commit murder and, in pursuance of that intention, performs an act towards its commission, regardless of whether the act is the penultimate or last act necessary to complete the crime. The act need not be the final step; it can be part of a series of acts that would have resulted in the victim''''s death if not for an intervening factor. This principle was applied in a case where the accused''''s act of starving the victim over several days constituted an attempt to commit murder, even though it was not the final act, because it was part of a continuous course of conduct intended to cause death.Checking relevance for Sarju Prasad VS State Of Bihar...

Sarju Prasad VS State Of Bihar - 1964 0 Supreme(SC) 195 : For an act to fall within Section 307, Indian Penal Code, it must be such that, but for the intervention of some circumstance, it would, if completed, have resulted in death. This is the key criterion for determining whether an attempt to commit murder under S. 307 IPC has occurred. The act must be one that, in the absence of external interference, would have led to death. Additionally, the prosecution must establish that the accused had the intention to cause death or to cause injury likely to cause death.

• Major deviation from the FIS regarding Section 307 IPC - The evidence and statements in the FIS are often scrutinized to determine whether they sufficiently establish an attempt to commit murder under Section 307 IPC. Several cases highlight that mere injuries or superficial evidence do not automatically warrant a charge under Section 307 IPC. For instance, in ["CHITRADAS Vs STATE OF KERALA - Kerala"], the court observed that the appellant was liable under Sections 452 and 324 IPC, and specifically noted that the offence under Section 324 IPC is lesser to the offence punishable under Section 307 IPC, implying the importance of evidence of an attempt to murder. Similarly, in ["VAZHAPPANAL SHAJI Vs STATE OF KERALA - Kerala"], the court found that the commission of the offence under Section 307 IPC is not seen made out in this case, emphasizing that the evidence did not sufficiently prove an attempt to murder.
• Timing and alterations of FIS - Several cases reveal that initial FIS often included allegations of attempt (Section 307 IPC), but later investigations or charges were altered, sometimes reducing the charges or excluding Section 307. For example, in ["CHITRADAS Vs STATE OF KERALA - Kerala"], the FIS was lodged belatedly, and the allegations levelled therein are false ones, with the offence later altered from Section 307 to Section 302. In ["CHITRADAS Vs STATE OF KERALA - Kerala"], the FIS initially alleged attempt under Section 307 but was subsequently changed to Section 302, indicating discrepancies or reevaluation of the evidence.
• Court's stance on sufficiency of evidence for Section 307 - Courts often emphasize that the mere presence of injuries or injuries of a certain nature does not automatically establish an offence under Section 307 IPC. For example, in ["Subash @ Achu, S/o.Raghavan vs State Of Kerala - Kerala"], the court noted that non- conviction under Section 307 IPC on the premise only that simple injury was inflicted does not follow as a matter of course, stressing that additional evidence of intent or attempt is necessary. Similarly, in ["CHITRADAS Vs STATE OF KERALA - Kerala"], the court acquitted accused of charges under Sections 307 and 302, citing lack of sufficient evidence, and highlighted that the evidence of PWs 1 and 2 was not accepted by the trial court because the alleged cause of injury was not convincingly linked to an attempt to murder.
• Evidence and ocular testimony - Several judgments stress the importance of ocular evidence and specific overt acts to establish a deviation from the FIS regarding Section 307. For instance, in ["CHITRADAS Vs STATE OF KERALA - Kerala"], the court noted the injuries inflicted as mentioned in the FIS corresponds with the injuries as found in the wound certificate, but emphasized that it would be open to the High Court to examine whether the prosecution has collected sufficient evidence, which if proved, would lead to framing the charge under Section 307. The absence of clear overt acts or intent in the FIS leads courts to deny the Section 307 charge, as seen in ["ARUN A. vs STATE OF KERALA - Kerala"] and ["ARUN A. vs STATE OF KERALA - Kerala"], where the petitioners' involvement was either not in the FIS or was not supported by sufficient evidence.Analysis and Conclusion:The main point across these sources is that deviation from the FIS regarding Section 307 IPC often occurs due to insufficient evidence of an attempt to murder, discrepancies in the timing or content of FIS, or the courts' insistence that injuries alone do not establish such an offence. Courts tend to scrutinize the ocular evidence, overt acts, and the consistency of statements to determine whether an offence under Section 307 is made out. When evidence falls short of proving intent or overt acts associated with attempt, courts tend to convict under lesser offences like Section 324 or acquit the accused of Section 307 charges.