Nature of Injury Not Decisive for Attempt to Murder Charge, Intention is Paramount: Madhya Pradesh HC

Indore : The High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Indore has dismissed a criminal revision petition, affirming that the nature of an injury is not the sole determinant for framing a charge of attempt to murder. Justice Gajendra Singh ruled that the accused's intention or knowledge at the time of the act is the crucial factor, and a trial court is justified in framing charges if there is "grave suspicion" of such intent, regardless of whether the resulting injury was life-threatening.

The decision came in the case of Vivek @ Vicky vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh , where the petitioner challenged the framing of charges under Sections 109(1) (attempt to murder) and 351(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita ( BNS ), 2023.

Case Background

The charges stemmed from an incident on May 22, 2025, where the petitioner, Vivek @ Vicky, allegedly attacked a man named Rahul with a knife near the Nagda Police Station in Ujjain. The trial court framed charges under several sections of the BNS , including attempt to murder.

Vivek challenged these charges, primarily arguing that the medical evidence did not support such a serious charge. His counsel pointed to a medical report from Dr. Ajay Kabra, which opined that the incised wounds on the victim's left arm were neither deep nor dangerous to life. The petitioner contended that the trial court had erred by not considering this medical opinion, which, in his view, negated the possibility of an offence of attempt to murder.

The State opposed the petition, defending the trial court's order to frame the charges.

The Court's Legal Analysis

Justice Gajendra Singh undertook a detailed review of the settled legal principles governing the framing of charges. The court referenced landmark Supreme Court judgments, including P. Vijayan vs. State of Kerala and * Sajjan Kumar vs. Central Bureau of Investigation *, to reiterate the scope of a judge's power at this preliminary stage.

The court emphasized that its role is not to conduct a "mini-trial" but to sift the evidence to determine if a prima facie case or "grave suspicion" exists against the accused. The judgment stated, "...the Judge is not a mere post office to frame the charge at the behest of the prosecution, but has to exercise his judicial mind to the facts of the case in order to determine whether a case for trial has been made out..."

Precedents and Principles Applied

The core of the High Court's reasoning rested on the interpretation of the offence of attempt to murder, for which it referred to the principles under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code ( IPC ), the precursor to the relevant BNS section.

The court highlighted two essential ingredients for the offence: 1. Knowledge or intention that the act, if it caused death, would constitute murder. 2. The commission of an act towards that end.

Justice Singh unequivocally stated, "From the plain reading of Section 307 of IPC , it is clear that presence of injury is not sine qua non for making out an offence under Section 307 of IPC ... Thus, the nature of injuries is not a decisive factor to determine as to whether the act of the assailant would be an act punishable under Section 307 of IPC or not."

Examination of Case Facts

Applying this legal standard, the court examined the specific facts of the case. It noted the victim Rahul's statement, which alleged that the petitioner had explicitly threatened to kill him before attacking him with a knife aimed at his neck. The victim intercepted the blow with his left arm, sustaining two incised wounds.

The court observed that despite the doctor's later opinion, the initial medical documents (MLC) noted continuous bleeding and a deep wound on the forearm with "tear of muscles and fat plain with excessive bleeding with open cut veins and muscular arteries." This evidence, combined with the victim's testimony about the threat and the targeting of a vital body part (the neck), was deemed sufficient to create a "grave suspicion" of an intention to commit murder.

Final Decision and Implications

Concluding that the trial court's order did not suffer from any illegality, the High Court dismissed the criminal revision petition. The court found no merit in the petitioner's argument and upheld the framing of charges.

This judgment reinforces the established legal principle that in cases of attempt to murder, the prosecution's focus is on proving the accused's guilty mind ( mens rea ) rather than the severity of the outcome. It serves as a reminder that a charge can be sustained based on evidence indicating intent—such as the weapon used, the part of the body targeted, and any accompanying threats—even if the victim fortunately escapes with minor injuries.