Grievous or life-endangering injuries alone do not establish attempted murder without requisite intent or knowledge.

On 28 April 2013, Sunil Kisku attacked several people at a dhaba with a darat (sickle), causing simple and grievous injuries.

The Sessions Court convicted him under Sections 324 and 326 IPC, but acquitted him under Section 307 IPC and Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act.

It sentenced him to two years’ rigorous imprisonment under Section 326 and one year under Section 324, with fines; Kisku did not appeal his convictions and had served the sentences.

The State appealed both for enhancement of sentence and against the acquittals.

1. Whether the evidence established the intention or knowledge required to convict Kisku under Section 307 IPC

2. Whether possession or use of the darat established offences under Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act

3. Whether the sentences imposed under Sections 324 and 326 IPC warranted enhancement

Section 307 IPC requires an overt act accompanied by the intention or knowledge that would make the act murder if death resulted; the nature or severity of the injury alone does not establish that mental element

Under Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act, criminal liability depends on proof of the relevant statutory prohibition or licensing requirement; Section 2(a)(i) defines prohibited arms, and Section 7 prohibits possession or use of prohibited arms without special authorisation.

In assessing enhancement, the Court considered the circumstances and genesis of the incident, its spontaneous nature, the absence of premeditation, and the time elapsed since the offence.

Although some injuries were grievous and a doctor considered certain injuries potentially dangerous to life, the evidence did not establish that Kisku acted with an intention or knowledge to cause death.

He was unknown to the injured persons, the incident was spontaneous, and the witnesses did not describe conduct demonstrating an intent to kill; injury severity alone could not supply the missing mens rea.

As to the Arms Act, the prosecution produced no Central Government notification declaring a darat or sickle to be a prohibited arm, nor identified a provision requiring a licence for its possession.

The Court also found no basis to enhance the sentences, given the spontaneous nature of the incident, the absence of premeditation or prior animosity, and the passage of time.

It declined to interfere with the acquittals under Section 307 IPC and Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act, and refused to enhance the sentences under Sections 324 and 326 IPC.