Grievous or life-threatening injury is not a prerequisite to framing an attempt-to-murder charge.

The petitioners challenged the Sessions Court’s order framing charges under Sections 115(2)/3(5), 118(2)/3(5), 109(1)/3(5), and 351(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS), with their revision confined to the charge under Section 109(1)/3(5).

The prosecution alleged that, during a dispute over access to a borewell, Kitab Singh struck Anil on the head with an iron Chain Pulley Block, while the other accused participated in the assault.

Anil’s subsequent CT scans showed skull fractures and a subdural hematoma.

The petitioners argued that the material did not disclose the intention or knowledge required for attempt to murder; the High Court dismissed the revision.

1. Whether the material on record disclosed a prima facie case or grave suspicion sufficient to sustain the charge under Section 109(1)/3(5) of the BNS.

2. Whether the absence of a medical opinion that Anil’s injuries were dangerous to life, or the framing of a charge under Section 118(2) of the BNS, precluded a concurrent charge under Section 109(1).

3. Whether the Sessions Court’s decision to frame the charge warranted interference in revision.

At the charge-framing stage, the court considers the police report, accompanying documents, and submissions to determine whether the material, taken at face value, discloses the ingredients of the alleged offence or raises grave and reasonable suspicion; it must not conduct a mini-trial or meticulously weigh evidence.

Revisional jurisdiction over a charge order is narrow and supervisory, and interference is generally warranted only for perversity, jurisdictional error, or manifest misreading of the record causing miscarriage of justice.

Section 109(1) of the BNS applies where an act is done with the intention or knowledge, and in circumstances, such that if death resulted the accused would be guilty of murder; a grievous or life-threatening injury is not a prerequisite, and the nature of injury is not conclusive.

Sections 109(1) and 118(2) address distinct ingredients and may both be charged where the material supports each offence.

The Court referred to Sajjan Kumar v. CBI, (2010) 9 SCC 368, and Ghulam Hassan Beigh v. Mohammad Maqbool Magrey, (2022) 12 SCC 657, on the need for independent judicial application of mind at the charge stage; it also relied on its decision in Khaleel v. State of M.P., Criminal Revision No. 5162 of 2025, and referred to Surender Kumar v. State of Haryana, SLP (Crl.) No. 14611 of 2026.

The Court considered the allegation that Kitab Singh struck Anil’s head with an iron Chain Pulley Block, the medical evidence of skull fractures and subdural hematoma, and the alleged participation of the other petitioners.

Taken together, this material raised grave suspicion as to the requisite intention or knowledge for Section 109(1), which was sufficient at the charge stage.

The absence of a medical opinion that the injuries were dangerous to life did not defeat the charge, because such an injury is not an essential prerequisite; nor did the charge under Section 118(2) exclude a separate charge under Section 109(1).

The Court declined to resolve the petitioners’ arguments about intention through a detailed assessment of the evidence, and found no basis for revisional interference.

It dismissed the revision and upheld the impugned order, while directing that the trial proceed on its merits without being influenced by the High Court’s observations.