Madhya Pradesh High Court
Man Singh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 2 July, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:16330
1 CRR-5010-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA
PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE GAJENDRA SINGH
ON THE 2nd OF JULY, 2025
CRIMINAL REVISION No. 5010 of 2024
MAN SINGH AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Appearance:
Shri Virendra Sharma -Senior Advocate with Shri Satish
Yadav for the petitioners.
Shri S.S Thakur -G.A for the respondent/State.
ORDER
This criminal revision under section 438 of the BNSS, 2023 is
preferred challenging the order dated 17.09.2024 in S.T.No.25/2024
by 2nd A.S.J, Mahidpur, district Ujjain whereby charges under
sections 147, 148, 307 r/w section 149, 324, 506 Part-II of the IPC
have been framed against all the revision petitioners and additional
charge under section 25(1-b)(b) of the Arms Act, 1959 has been
framed against the revision petitioners Mansingh and Gopal Singh.
The charge under section 307 of the IPC has been framed for
committing attempt of murder of Pawan Anjana and charge under
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: HARIKUMAR
NAIR
Signing time: 03-07-2025
14:25:26
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:16330
2 CRR-5010-2024
section 324 IPC has been framed for causing voluntary injury by
sharp edged weapon to Om Anjana.
2. This revision petition is preferred on the ground that one
of the most important aspect is the intention and in the First
Information Report and the statements, injured never said that the
accused persons have assaulted with the intention to kill. The
victims have not suffered any fractures on the vital part of the body.
Accordingly, charge under section 307 of the IPC is not sustainable.
Whatsoever charge may be framed falls within the purview of
section 324 of the IPC for both the injured.
3. Heard.
4. Counsel for the respondent has opposed the revision
petition and supported the impugned order.
5. Perused the First Information Report lodged on
07.02.2024 regarding the incident dated 06.02.2024 and a crime
no.23/24 was registered at police station Raghvi, district Ujjain in
which the allegations are that when the victim side were in front of
their house in village Kitiya, then accused party came armed with
sword, Daria and axe and assaulted Om Anjana and Pawan Anjana.
The assault on Pawan is stated to be on the head.
6. Referring to the X-ray and CT scan report of the head it is
submitted that even Pawan sustained no grievous injuries and the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: HARIKUMAR
NAIR
Signing time: 03-07-2025
14:25:26
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:16330
3 CRR-5010-2024
grievous injuries regarding which the query dated 01.03.2024 has
been submitted is regarding the injury of left side of hand in which
second and third phylum were fractured and treated through CRIF
and K wire fixing.
7. 6. In Tillu @ Manish Vs. State of M.P. ( Cr. A No.
2768/2021 dated 22-08-2022) Hon’ble the High Court of Madhya
Pradesh of Gwalior Bench has discussed the position regarding
nature of injuries in determining the commission of offence under
Section 307 of IPC in paragraphs- 58 to 67. Those are being
reproduced hereunder :-
“58. It is well established principle of law that nature of
injuries are not decisive factor to find out as to whether
the accused has committed an offence under Section 307
of IPC or not?
59. Section 307 of IPC reads as under :
307. Attempt to murder.–Whoever does any act with
such intention or knowledge, and under such
circumstances that, if he by that act caused death, he
would be guilty of murder, shall be punished with
imprisonment of either description for a term which may
extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine; and if
hurt is caused to any person by such act, the offender shall
be liable either to imprisonment for life, or to such
punishment as is herein before mentioned. Attempts by
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: HARIKUMAR
NAIR
Signing time: 03-07-2025
14:25:26
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:163304 CRR-5010-2024
life convicts.–When any person offending under this
section is under sentence of imprisonment for life, he may,
if hurt is caused, be punished with death.
60. 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. 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.
61. Thus, the following two ingredients are necessary to
make out an offence under Section 307 of IPC :
(a) Knowledge or intention that by his act, if murder is
caused then he would be guilty of murder ;
(b) Does any act towards commission of that offence.
62. The first part of Section 307 of IPC deals with a
situation, where no injury is caused and second part of
Section 307 of IPC deals with a 22 situation where hurt is
caused. “Hurt” is defined in Section 319 of IPC which
reads as under :
319. Hurt.–Whoever causes bodily pain, disease or
infirmity to any person is said to cause hurt.
63. 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. In
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: HARIKUMAR
NAIR
Signing time: 03-07-2025
14:25:26
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:16330
5 CRR-5010-2024
order to gather intention or knowledge, the weapon used,
part of the body on which injury was caused as well as
number of injuries are some of the important aspects.
64. The Supreme Court in the case of State of M.P. Vs.
Harjeet Singh reported in (2019) 20 SCC 524 has held as
under :
5.6.1. If a person causes hurt with the intention or
knowledge that he may cause death, it would attract
Section 307.
5.6.2. This Court in R. Prakash v. State of Karnataka, held
that: (SCC p. 30, paras 8-9)“8. … The first blow was on a vital part, that is, on the
temporal region. Even though other blows were on
nonvital parts, that does not take away the rigour of
Section 307 IPC. …
9. It is sufficient to justify a conviction under Section 307
if there is present an intent coupled with some overt act in
execution thereof. It is not essential that bodily injury
capable of causing death should have been inflicted.
Although the nature of injury actually caused may often
give considerable assistance in coming to a finding as to
the intention of the accused, such intention may also be
deduced from other 52 Kedar Singh and another Vs. State
of M.P. (Cr.A. No. 687 of 2010) Bharat Singh & Ors. Vs.
State of M.P. (691 of 2010) circumstances, and may even,
in some cases, be ascertained without any reference at all
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: HARIKUMAR
NAIR
Signing time: 03-07-2025
14:25:26
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:16330
6 CRR-5010-2024
to actual wounds. The section makes a distinction between
the act of the accused and its result, if any. The court has
to see whether the act, irrespective of its result, was done
with the intention or knowledge and under circumstances
mentioned in the section.”
(emphasis supplied)
5.6.3. If the assailant acts with the intention or knowledge
that such action might cause death, and hurt is caused,
then the provisions of Section 307 IPC would be
applicable. There is no requirement for the injury to be on
a “vital part” of the body, merely causing “hurt” is
sufficient to attract Section 307 IPC.
5.6.4. This Court in Jage Ram v. State of Haryana held
that: (SCC p. 370, para 12)
“12. For the purpose of conviction under Section 307IPC,
prosecution has to establish (i) the intention to commit
murder; and (ii) the act done by the accused. The burden
is on the prosecution that the accused had attempted to
commit the murder of the prosecution witness. Whether
the accused person intended to commit murder of another
person would depend upon the facts and circumstances of
each case. To justify a conviction under Section 307 IPC,
it is not essential that fatal injury capable of causing death
should have been caused. Although the nature of injury
actually caused may be of assistance in coming to a
finding as to the intention of the accused, such intention
may also be adduced from other circumstances. The
intention of the accused is to be gathered from the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: HARIKUMAR
NAIR
Signing time: 03-07-2025
14:25:26
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:16330
7 CRR-5010-2024
circumstances like the nature of the weapon used, words
used by the accused at the time of the incident, motive of
the accused, parts of the body where the injury was caused
and the nature of injury and severity of the blows given,
etc.”
(emphasis supplied)
5.6.5. This Court in the recent decision of State of M.P. v.
Kanha held that: (SCC p. 609, para 13)
“13. The above judgments of this Court lead us to the
conclusion that proof of grievous or life-threatening hurt
is not a sine qua non for the offence under Section 307 of
the Penal Code. The intention of the accused can be
ascertained from the actual injury, if any, as well as from
surrounding circumstances. Among other things, the
nature of the weapon used and the severity of the blows
inflicted can be considered to infer intent.”
65. The Supreme Court in the case of State of M.P. Vs.
Kanha reported in (2019) 3 SCC 605 has held as under :
13. The above judgments of this Court lead us to the
conclusion that proof of grievous or life-threatening hurt
is not a sine qua non for the offence under Section 307 of
the Penal Code. The intention of the accused can be
ascertained from the actual injury, if any, as well as from
surrounding circumstances. Among other things, the
nature of the weapon used and the severity of the blows
inflicted can be considered to infer intent.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: HARIKUMAR
NAIR
Signing time: 03-07-2025
14:25:26
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:16330
8 CRR-5010-2024
66. The Supreme Court in the case of State of M.P. Vs.
Saleem reported in (2005) 5 SCC 554 has held as under :
12. To justify a conviction under this section, it is not
essential that bodily injury capable of causing death
should have been inflicted. Although the nature of injury
actually caused may often give considerable assistance in
coming to a finding as to the intention of the accused,
such intention may also be deduced from other
circumstances, and may even, in some cases, be
ascertained without any reference at all to actual wounds.
The section makes a distinction between an act of the
accused and its result, if any. Such an act may not be
attended by any result so far as the person assaulted is
concerned, but still there may be cases in which the culprit
would be liable under this section. It is not necessary that
the injury actually caused to the victim of the assault
should be sufficient under ordinary circumstances to cause
the death of the person assaulted. What the court has to
see is whether the act, irrespective of its result, was done
with the intention or knowledge and under circumstances
mentioned in the section.An attempt in order to be
criminal need not be the penultimate act. It is sufficient in
law, if there is present an intent coupled with some overt
act in execution thereof.
13. It is sufficient to justify a conviction under Section
307 if there is present an intent coupled with some overt
act in execution thereof. It is not essential that bodily
injury capable of causing death should have been inflicted.
The section makes a distinction between the act of the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: HARIKUMAR
NAIR
Signing time: 03-07-2025
14:25:26
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:16330
9 CRR-5010-2024
accused and its result, if any. The court has to see whether
the act, irrespective of its result, was done with the
intention or knowledge and under circumstances
mentioned in the section. Therefore, an accused charged
under Section 307 IPC cannot be acquitted merely
because the injuries inflicted on the victim were in the
nature of a simple hurt.
14. This position was highlighted in State of Maharashtra
v. Balram Bama Patil, Girija Shankar v. State of U.P. and
R. Prakash v. State of Karnataka.
15. In Sarju Prasad v. State of Bihar it was observed in
para 6 that mere fact that the injury actually inflicted by
the accused did not cut any vital organ of the victim, is not
by itself sufficient to take the act out of the purview of
Section 307.
16. Whether there was intention to kill or knowledge that
death will be caused is a question of fact and would
depend on the facts of a given case. The circumstances
that the injury inflicted by the accused was simple or
minor will not by itself rule out application of Section 307
IPC. The determinative question is the intention or
knowledge, as the case may be, and not the nature of the
injury. The basic difference between Sections 333 and 325
IPC is that Section 325 gets attracted where grievous hurt
is caused whereas Section 333 gets attracted if such hurt is
caused to a public servant.
67. Thus, if the accused has a knowledge or intention that
by his act, if murder is caused then he would be guilty of
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: HARIKUMAR
NAIR
Signing time: 03-07-2025
14:25:26
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:16330
10 CRR-5010-2024
murder and does any act towards commission of that
offence, then such act would be sufficient to make out an
offence under Section 307 of IPC, irrespective of nature of
injury.”
8. Accordingly, to attract the provision of section 307 of the
IPC the injury is not decisive and in this case and the intention may
be inferred from the part of the body on which the assault was made
and the weapon which was used in the assault and on this ground
there is no illegality in the framing of the charges.
8. There is no substance in the criminal revision.
Accordingly, same is dismissed.
(GAJENDRA SINGH)
JUDGE
hk/
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: HARIKUMAR
NAIR
Signing time: 03-07-2025
14:25:26