Simple Injury Cannot Rule Out Attempt to Murder at Charge Stage When Weapon and Manner of Assault Reveal Intent: Punjab and Haryana High Court Upholds Section 307 IPC Charge

Case Name: Kamaljit Singh v. State of Punjab

Date of Judgment: 14 August 2026

Citation: CRR No. 178 of 2021

Bench: Hon’ble Mrs. Justice Manisha Batra

Held: The Punjab and Haryana High Court held that the mere fact that the injuries sustained by the victim were simple in nature or were inflicted on a non-vital part of the body is not, by itself, sufficient to exclude an offence under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code at the stage of framing of charge. The intention or knowledge necessary to constitute an attempt to murder must be inferred from the totality of the circumstances, including the weapon used, the manner of assault, the body part targeted, the motive, the severity of the blow and the surrounding circumstances. Where the accused allegedly entered the complainant’s house with several armed persons, carried a kirpan, attacked the victim and extended threats to kill the complainant’s family, sufficient prima facie material existed to proceed under Section 307 IPC.

Summary: The criminal revision petition was filed by Kamaljit Singh challenging the order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge/Special Court, Shaheed Bhagat Singh Nagar, framing charges against him and his co-accused under Sections 307, 324, 452, 427, 506 and 148 IPC. The prosecution case arose from FIR No. 45 dated 11 May 2019, registered at Police Station Sadar Banga, District Shaheed Bhagat Singh Nagar. According to the FIR, the petitioner and the other accused forcibly entered the complainant’s house in connection with a dispute relating to the house purchased by the complainant’s family from the petitioner. The petitioner was allegedly armed with a kirpan, while the other accused carried gandasas. It was alleged that the petitioner attacked Jaswinder Rani with the kirpan, but when she raised her right hand to protect herself, the blow landed on her hand. The other accused also allegedly assaulted her, damaged the complainant’s vehicle and fled after threatening to kill the complainant and his family.

The petitioner sought removal of the charge under Section 307 IPC by contending that only one blow had been attributed to him, the injury was caused on a non-vital part of the victim’s body and both injuries recorded in the medical and X-ray reports had ultimately been declared simple. He argued that these circumstances did not disclose the intention or knowledge necessary to constitute an attempt to murder and that the alleged act, at the highest, fell within Section 324 IPC.

The High Court rejected this contention after referring to the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in Hari Singh v. Sukhbir Singh, (1988) 4 SCC 551; State of Maharashtra v. Kashirao, (2003) 10 SCC 434; Parsuram Pandey v. State of Bihar, (2004) 13 SCC 189; and Jage Ram v. State of Haryana, (2015) 11 SCC 366. The Court reiterated that, for the application of Section 307 IPC, it is not necessary that an injury capable of causing death must actually have been inflicted. What is material is whether the act was performed with the intention or knowledge required to constitute murder. Such intention may be inferred from the nature of the weapon, the manner of its use, the motive, the words used by the accused, the part of the body targeted and the circumstances surrounding the occurrence.

The Court observed that the allegation was not of a spontaneous quarrel or chance occurrence. The petitioner and several co-accused had allegedly pushed open the gate and entered the complainant’s house while armed with a kirpan and gandasas. The FIR expressly alleged that they entered the premises with an intention to kill. The petitioner allegedly attacked the victim with a kirpan, and the blow landed on her hand only because she raised it to protect herself. Consequently, the simple nature and location of the injury could not conclusively negate the alleged intention at the preliminary stage. Those matters required evaluation during trial after the prosecution had been given an opportunity to lead evidence.

The Court further explained that, while framing a charge, the trial court is not required to undertake a meticulous assessment of the evidence or determine whether the prosecution will ultimately secure a conviction. The recovery of the alleged weapon and the statements of the injured and other witnesses provided sufficient grounds to proceed against the petitioner. The petitioner’s objections concerning the nature and location of the injuries involved an appreciation of evidence that could appropriately be undertaken only during the trial.

Decision: The High Court dismissed the criminal revision petition and upheld the order framing charges against the petitioner, including the charge under Section 307 IPC. It found no illegality or infirmity in the trial court’s order.