The Supreme Court has set aside a Rajasthan High Court order that had reduced a charge of attempt to murder to attempt to commit culpable homicide, largely because the injuries were on the arms and wrist. A Bench of Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice Vipul M. Pancholi restored the charge under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) against respondent No. 2.
Background
The incident dates back to 26 November 2020, in the agricultural field of the appellant, Abhishek, in Village Polas, Nagaur district. According to the prosecution, respondent No. 2 and other family members entered the field in a tractor at high speed. The tractor was allegedly driven repeatedly towards the appellant and his family, and it struck his mother on the waist, making her fall.
The accused then allegedly attacked the family with sharp-edged farm tools, including axes. The appellant had a 7 cm by 3 cm bone-deep cut on his left arm. His father had two incised wounds, one of them bone-deep, on the right wrist and forearm.
An FIR was registered the next day at Police Station Merta Road. After the investigation, the Additional Sessions Judge, Merta, framed charges on 28 November 2023, including Section 307 IPC against respondent No. 2. Respondent Nos. 2 to 4 challenged this before the High Court.
On 1 April 2025, the High Court noted that the wounds were on non-vital parts and that the mother had only abrasions. It held that the case might not go beyond Section 308 IPC (attempt to commit culpable homicide) and directed the trial court to frame the charge accordingly.
Counsel for the appellant, Nishant Bishnoi, argued that intention is judged from the whole situation, including weapons, earlier enmity and the manner of the attack, and not just the location of the wounds. He added that the injuries were suffered while the family was shielding their heads from axe blows.
Counsel for the State, S. Udaya Kumar Sagar, supported this position. No one appeared for respondent Nos. 2 to 4 despite service of notice.
The Bench reiterated that Section 307 does not require a life-threatening injury to be actually caused. What matters is whether the act was done with the required intention or knowledge. It relied on earlier rulings, including State of Maharashtra v. Balram Bama Patil, State of M.P. v. Saleem and Jage Ram v. State of Haryana.
On the limited scope of the court at the stage of framing charges, the Bench said:
"We are of the view that at the stage of framing charges under Sections 227 and 228 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for brevity "Cr.P.C."), the Court is not required to hold a mini-trial or weigh the evidentiary material as if adjudicating guilt after a full-fledged trial and the Court is only required to examine whether the investigating material, statements of witnesses and records disclose a prima facie case and raise a suspicion against the accused."
The Court pointed to the investigation material, including witness statements, spot inspection reports, recoveries and medico-legal certificates. It also noted the appellant's statement that the accused attacked their heads with axes, and that the blows landed on the shoulders when he and his father raised their arms. The Bench said the High Court had made a "summary and technical assessment" of the injuries. It also observed that Section 216 of the Code of Criminal Procedure allows a trial court to alter a charge at any time before judgment if the evidence so requires.
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the High Court's order of 1 April 2025. It restored the Additional Sessions Judge's order of 28 November 2023 framing the charge, including under Section 307 IPC, against respondent No. 2.
The Court clarified that its observations are limited to this appeal and will not affect the merits of the trial, which must proceed in accordance with law.
