A simple knife injury without proof of murderous intent warrants conviction under BNS Section 118(1).

Neera Bai, the appellant’s wife, had left the matrimonial home and was staying with her parents.

On 8 August 2024, after she refused to return with the appellant, he stabbed her in the abdomen with a knife.

Her father, sister-in-law and a neighbour supported her account; the medical evidence recorded a stab wound caused by a hard and pointed object, classified as simple in nature.

The trial court convicted the appellant under Section 109 of the IPC and sentenced him to seven years’ rigorous imprisonment and a fine.

He appealed under Section 415(2) of the BNSS, challenging the conviction and sentence.

1. Whether the evidence established the offence for which the appellant was convicted under Section 109 of the IPC, given the simple nature of the injury.

2. If the conviction was not set aside, whether the sentence should be reduced to the period already undergone.

The Court considered Section 109 of the IPC, under which the trial court had convicted the appellant, and Section 118(1) of the BNS, which it applied to the proved injury.

It relied on State of Maharashtra v. Kashirao, (2003) 10 SCC 434, for the essential requirements of an attempt-to-murder offence under Section 307 of the IPC: an attempt to cause death, attributable to the accused, accompanied by the requisite intention or knowledge concerning the likely fatal or sufficiently serious injury.

The appeal was brought under Section 415(2) of the BNSS.

The victim’s evidence that the appellant stabbed her was corroborated by three witnesses and by the medical report, and the Court found that he had caused the injury with a knife.

However, the injury was simple, and the prosecution had not proved the ingredients described in Kashirao for an attempt-to-murder offence.

The Court therefore held that the conviction under Section 109 of the IPC could not stand and found the offence proved instead under Section 118(1) of the BNS.

In sentencing, it considered the period spent in custody, the parties’ relationship and the simple nature of the injury, and concluded that the period already undergone was sufficient.

The Court substituted a conviction under Section 118(1) of the BNS for the conviction under Section 109 of the IPC and reduced the custodial sentence to the period already undergone, while maintaining the fine.

As the appellant was reported to be in jail, the Court directed his release forthwith unless required in another case.