No Crush Injury, No Attempt to Murder: Punjab & Haryana High Court Quashes Section 307 IPC Charge in Tractor-Runover Allegation
Case Name: Ramesh Singh v. State of Punjab and Another
Date of Decision: 20 February 2026
Citation: CRR-821-2022
Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Jasjit Singh Bedi
Held: The Punjab and Haryana High Court held that where the medical evidence (MLR) does not support the allegation of a tractor being run over the injured with intent to kill, framing of charge under Section 307 IPC is unsustainable. In the absence of crush injuries or tyre marks—natural consequences of such an act—the essential ingredients of attempt to murder are not prima facie made out. Accordingly, the charge under Section 307 IPC was quashed.
Summary: The petitioner challenged the order dated 23.12.2021 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Fazilka, whereby charges had been framed under Section 307 IPC and Section 506 IPC in FIR No. 43 dated 26.06.2021 registered under Sections 307, 323, 434, 447, 506, 34 IPC at Police Station Amir Khas, District Fazilka .
As per the FIR lodged by Dalip Singh, a land dispute between brothers had escalated. It was alleged that after demarcation of land, the petitioner Ramesh Singh and others uprooted boundary markers. On 20.06.2021, during an altercation, co-accused allegedly raised a lalkara and instigated that Dalip Singh be taught a lesson. It was further alleged that the petitioner ran a tractor over the complainant’s left leg with intention to kill him .
The petitioner contended that the medical evidence completely belied the version in the FIR. The Medico-Legal Report recorded only two injuries: (i) complaint of pain in the left knee joint without any external injury; and (ii) multiple red abrasions on the right leg, the longest measuring 8 cm .
The Court examined the nature of injuries and observed that if a tractor had indeed run over the leg of an individual, crush injuries or tyre marks would have been evident. The absence of any such injury, coupled with the fact that the only external injury was abrasions on the opposite leg, rendered the allegation of an attempt to murder inherently improbable .
The Court held that the allegation of running a tractor over the complainant with intent to kill was “completely baseless” in light of the medical evidence. Consequently, the ingredients necessary to sustain a charge under Section 307 IPC were not satisfied.
Decision: The revision petition was allowed. The impugned order dated 23.12.2021 was quashed to the extent that charges under Section 307 IPC had been framed. The Sessions Judge, Fazilka was directed to assign the case to the appropriate Court in accordance with law .